Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[WarrenC12]

I can't believe this is still making news. The viaduct is like the "5th bridge" into the downtown core. Until we get flying cars, I think we need it. Talking about tearing it down is a joke. Does the city really have nothing else to do?

How about getting the damn Olympic Village sold.

[aberdeen5698]

Speaking as someone who would just as soon use my bike as drive, and who doesn't particularly want to see any more vehicle traffic in the city, I'm on the side of keeping the viaducts. It will be interesting to see what alternatives the study comes up with, but I don't think it makes sense to spend money tearing them down when they've still got 50 years of serviceable life in them. They're a perfectly good asset that shouldn't go to waste.

If they were near end-of-life then it would make sense to evaluate a range of options for replacing them. But tearing them down now really doesn't make any sense to me.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Speaking as someone who would just as soon use my bike as drive, and who doesn't particularly want to see any more vehicle traffic in the city, I'm on the side of keeping the viaducts. It will be interesting to see what alternatives the study comes up with, but I don't think it makes sense to spend money tearing them down when they've still got 50 years of serviceable life in them. They're a perfectly good asset that shouldn't go to waste.

If they were near end-of-life then it would make sense to evaluate a range of options for replacing them. But tearing them down now really doesn't make any sense to me.

Finally someone sensible.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Nobody said you couldn't drive. But we are not only going to cater to the drivers. There is more to a cities transportation system than just someone driving in from the suburbs.

Absolutely true .... but .... many downtown residents ALSO have cars and like to drive around, not only to the suburbs, but to various points within the city.

THEIR cars take up space, too. This is not an "us" against "them" (black // white) situation. People from all parts of the city drive in and out of, and around the central city for a multitude of reasons.

Do I like carbon-monoxide, smoke, honking horns, and noise? NO OF COURSE NOT!! But the car is a reality we have to accept and make space for. Other cities the world over have to do it. It's a reality.

Vancouver is no exception. But with careful planning, we can make the car lanes and routes and ramps as discreet and unimposing as possible.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I can't believe this is still making news. The viaduct is like the "5th bridge" into the downtown core. Until we get flying cars, I think we need it. Talking about tearing it down is a joke. Does the city really have nothing else to do?

How about getting the damn Olympic Village sold.

Another practical, right-on POV.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Speaking as someone who would just as soon use my bike as drive, and who doesn't particularly want to see any more vehicle traffic in the city, I'm on the side of keeping the viaducts. It will be interesting to see what alternatives the study comes up with, but I don't think it makes sense to spend money tearing them down when they've still got 50 years of serviceable life in them. They're a perfectly good asset that shouldn't go to waste.

If they were near end-of-life then it would make sense to evaluate a range of options for replacing them. But tearing them down now really doesn't make any sense to me.

According to the report, they've only got a 50 year life span that began in the 70's. So technically, in the next decade or so, this does become a real issue of what maintenance or seismic upgrades the viaducts would need to remain structurally sound. Considering how long it takes to build a bridge out here, I don't think a ten year timespan to determining the future options for the viaducts is unreasonable.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by cabotp

As for the Viaducts. While I don't drive and I only cycle and take transit everywhere. I do believe that we shouldn't tear them down at this point in time. In 10 years or 20 years who knows.

As for realigning the skytrain guide way. Even if we had all the money in the world to do so. Is it really necessary. Sure the trains are force to move slower in that one section because of some complaining residents. Thing is it has been like that for years now. So one can assume that most people have just gotten used to the idea.

The SkyTrain can't be substantially realigned there, since you can't move Main St station nor the tracks along the west side of Quebec until you get to the Georgia Viaduct. What some people are saying is that after the Georgia & Dunsmuir viaducts are removed, the Skytrain tracks don't need to dip down to the ground to get under the viaducts. ( http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...WLYWAtthi7sGgBcKKw&cbp=12,237.02,,0,2.77 ).

With the Viaducts gone, the Skytrain Tracks could be raised up to their 'normal' height, but this doesn't help the nearby condo owners who are complaining about the Skytrain noise, and won't actually increase the speed of the trains through the area enough to justify the millions spent on altering the tracks.

With the Skytrain tracks still there after the viaducts are removed, what have you actually gained by removing the viaducts?
If I was spending the money, I would keep the viaducts and keep the the same Skytrain alignment but rebuild that small stretch of Skytrain track to go OVER the viaducts so the land between the viaducts would be easier to develop.

( http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...9.277206,-123.102837&spn=0,0.005493&z=18 )

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

According to the report, they've only got a 50 year life span that began in the 70's. So technically, in the next decade or so, this does become a real issue of what maintenance or seismic upgrades the viaducts would need to remain structurally sound. Considering how long it takes to build a bridge out here, I don't think a ten year timespan to determining the future options for the viaducts is unreasonable.

The report indicates there is another 50 years of life to these viaducts with proper maintenance:

"Although structures of this type typically have a life span of 75 years, recent inspections
indicate that the Viaducts are in good condition and a remaining lifespan of 50 years could be
expected. Despite their good condition, all structures require capital rehabilitation and
maintenance over their operating life. "
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20100624/documents/penv3.pdf

With the St. Pauls hospital move to Main St / Prior St (the former Tech Park land north of Pacific Central Station) on the back burner again, this can be the time to keep the viaducts & realign the segment east of Main St so it connects to the Malkin Ave connector.

Notice this isn't one of the choices?

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Sorry but what? There's a few different phases of evaluation that things should undergo before implementation. The first couple stages that happen before a full feasibility study or even a pre-feas study are all about the pitch of weather or not an idea makes any sense.

What you're saying is because this idea will probably be deemed financially suicidal for the CoV; with something along the lines of a few scribbles on a napkin, we should commit about 1% of the CoV budget. Doesn't this seem kind of backwards to you? This isn't some kind of logic trick problem...

No, I'm not saying it's financially suicidal -- exactly the opposite. I'm saying that land use changes could net the CoV a significant amount of money, either through freeing up new land for development or through enhancing the value of the land that is there. Ignoring a large amount of cash sitting on the table because you're too cheap to do a proper risk analysis is negligent.

Even if there's no business case and any change is rejected, at least the debate is given closure. This gives investors/developers/stakeholders certainty about the situation, and certainty is needed for investment and proper planning. No serious investor is going to accept a "few scribbles on a napkin".

So, your maximum risk for the CoV here is $700K, with a potential reward of at least millions or tens of millions. The risk/reward ratio for the CoV is more than reasonable. I would gladly take that bet.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

No, I'm not saying it's financially suicidal -- exactly the opposite. I'm saying that land use changes could net the CoV a significant amount of money, either through freeing up new land for development or through enhancing the value of the land that is there. Ignoring a large amount of cash sitting on the table because you're too cheap to do a proper risk analysis is negligent.

Even if there's no business case and any change is rejected, at least the debate is given closure. This gives investors/developers/stakeholders certainty about the situation, and certainty is needed for investment and proper planning. No serious investor is going to accept a "few scribbles on a napkin".

So, your maximum risk for the CoV here is $700K, with a potential reward of at least millions or tens of millions. The risk/reward ratio for the CoV is more than reasonable. I would gladly take that bet.

I imagine that the City might also be able to raise funds by adding or increasing charges to community groups for using parks and other public facilities. Better commission a study.

I imagine the City might be able to raise funds by adding meters for bike parking downtown. Better commission a study.

I imagine the City might be able to raise funds by charging for licenses for community gardens. Better commission a study.

What? No study? I wonder... could it be that such "studies" are only commissioned to support results which fit into Councils' goals and biases? Could it be that the viaduct study has more to do with the current Councils' dislike of cars than with any real or even perceived need to raise funds through making land available for redevelopment?

I wonder.

[red-paladin]

This is so ridiculous. GM place and Specturm have already been built to accommodate the viaducts. If I were either one of those companies, I would sue the city if they tried to remove them.

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by lezard

I know, isn't it terrible? We should bring a complaint to the Human Rights Council for the discrimination the drivers in this city suffer.

Free Henry Ford! End Carpartheid now!

Don't you think that the reaction to this report that hasn't even been completed is somewhat excessive? It seems that the benchmark on these forums for when a proposal is deemed unreasonable is when it has any, no matter how slight, impact on the convenience of just one road user: drivers.

On another thread, the lives of "crackheads" was deemed less important than the 2 minutes that drivers would lose if a speed reduction was implemented. And I was a commie for commenting on that.

Also if it is true that most people in the city want to "destroy" "progressive" vehicle movement in the city, then that's democracy for you. Better start getting a taste for granola.

Not everybody in this city appears to share your urban esthetics and your trust in progress above all.

Thanks for posting, lezard. I gave up on this particular forum some time ago because of how unnecessarily polarized (name-calling, etc.) the discussion became. Trying to hold a nuanced view is difficult when even the slightest deviation from the party line results in accusations of greenwashing, "granola"-headedness, anti-progressivism (whatever that means), etc.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

Thanks for posting, lezard. I gave up on this particular forum some time ago because of how unnecessarily polarized (name-calling, etc.) the discussion became. Trying to hold a nuanced view is difficult when even the slightest deviation from the party line results in accusations of greenwashing, "granola"-headedness, anti-progressivism (whatever that means), etc.

I enjoy the forums here for the amount of information on development in and around Vancouver. Many of the posters are very well informed and often I learn much from reading the posts.

Unfortunately, the political polarization is frustrating. The extreme views are disappointing, coming from people who are otherwise very well informed and intelligent.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

No, I'm not saying it's financially suicidal -- exactly the opposite. I'm saying that land use changes could net the CoV a significant amount of money, either through freeing up new land for development or through enhancing the value of the land that is there. Ignoring a large amount of cash sitting on the table because you're too cheap to do a proper risk analysis is negligent.

Even if there's no business case and any change is rejected, at least the debate is given closure. This gives investors/developers/stakeholders certainty about the situation, and certainty is needed for investment and proper planning. No serious investor is going to accept a "few scribbles on a napkin".

So, your maximum risk for the CoV here is $700K, with a potential reward of at least millions or tens of millions. The risk/reward ratio for the CoV is more than reasonable. I would gladly take that bet.

Nicely explained.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

No, I'm not saying it's financially suicidal -- exactly the opposite. I'm saying that land use changes could net the CoV a significant amount of money, either through freeing up new land for development or through enhancing the value of the land that is there. Ignoring a large amount of cash sitting on the table because you're too cheap to do a proper risk analysis is negligent.

Even if there's no business case and any change is rejected, at least the debate is given closure. This gives investors/developers/stakeholders certainty about the situation, and certainty is needed for investment and proper planning. No serious investor is going to accept a "few scribbles on a napkin".

So, your maximum risk for the CoV here is $700K, with a potential reward of at least millions or tens of millions. The risk/reward ratio for the CoV is more than reasonable. I would gladly take that bet.

Realistically where's all this money coming from? We've already discussed that they'd only be able to fit 3 or so additional towers. I don't follow commercial real estate prices, but I'd bet the sale of that land that would be worth under say $75 million. While the CoV would get an additional tax base, most residential properties in this city are subsidized by the higher tax we charge businesses.

If you add up all the expenses it's not hard to see how we could spend at least that much money on this project. Unless we just leave Georgia and Dunsmuir as a stub road, we would need to pay for a considerable amount of demolition, construction of 2 rather large ramps, possible changes to the viaduct, and all the possible changes to the surface streets.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

The report indicates there is another 50 years of life to these viaducts with proper maintenance:

"Although structures of this type typically have a life span of 75 years, recent inspections
indicate that the Viaducts are in good condition and a remaining lifespan of 50 years could be
expected. Despite their good condition, all structures require capital rehabilitation and
maintenance over their operating life. "
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20100624/documents/penv3.pdf

With the St. Pauls hospital move to Main St / Prior St (the former Tech Park land north of Pacific Central Station) on the back burner again, this can be the time to keep the viaducts & realign the segment east of Main St so it connects to the Malkin Ave connector.

Notice this isn't one of the choices?

Ah my mistake. I read it wrong! 50 years to go

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Realistically where's all this money coming from? We've already discussed that they'd only be able to fit 3 or so additional towers. I don't follow commercial real estate prices, but I'd bet the sale of that land that would be worth under say $75 million. While the CoV would get an additional tax base, most residential properties in this city are subsidized by the higher tax we charge businesses.

If you add up all the expenses it's not hard to see how we could spend at least that much money on this project. Unless we just leave Georgia and Dunsmuir as a stub road, we would need to pay for a considerable amount of demolition, construction of 2 rather large ramps, possible changes to the viaduct, and all the possible changes to the surface streets.

I suspect that will also be the case, but let's wait for the study with final estimates before conclusions are jumped to based on perceptions

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by IanS

I imagine that the City might also be able to raise funds by adding or increasing charges to community groups for using parks and other public facilities. Better commission a study.

I imagine the City might be able to raise funds by adding meters for bike parking downtown. Better commission a study.

I imagine the City might be able to raise funds by charging for licenses for community gardens. Better commission a study.

What? No study? I wonder... could it be that such "studies" are only commissioned to support results which fit into Councils' goals and biases? Could it be that the viaduct study has more to do with the current Councils' dislike of cars than with any real or even perceived need to raise funds through making land available for redevelopment?

I wonder.

I would assume that all elected officials are pursuing their "goals and biases" (in other words, their mandate).

[lezard]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

I would assume that all elected officials are pursuing their "goals and biases" (in other words, their mandate).

30 years of city planning that has had the result of Vancouver being in the top ten of various lists of most livable cities for years was council pursuing their "goals and biases".

Bad boys. Tsk tsk.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Absolutely true .... but .... many downtown residents ALSO have cars and like to drive around, not only to the suburbs, but to various points within the city.

THEIR cars take up space, too. This is not an "us" against "them" (black // white) situation. People from all parts of the city drive in and out of, and around the central city for a multitude of reasons.

Do I like carbon-monoxide, smoke, honking horns, and noise? NO OF COURSE NOT!! But the car is a reality we have to accept and make space for. Other cities the world over have to do it. It's a reality.

Vancouver is no exception. But with careful planning, we can make the car lanes and routes and ramps as discreet and unimposing as possible.

I do agree that car is never going to disappear. Which is why I do feel the viaducts should not be torn down.

What I do disagree with though is the idea of building expressways or building extra lanes. Now the hopeful part is that if they are built that people would drive on them instead of the local arterials. Which in that sense is a great idea. My biggest fear though is that people would start to notice how much easier it is to drive. So more people would then decide to drive instead of taking transit or cycling or walking. The premise of induced demand is what scares me the most.