Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Zassk

As for high speed rail, the notion of having the terminus at Main Street is ridiculous. HSR can terminate at the south end of the Expo Line, and would probably save at least $1 billion by doing so.

High speed isn't too competitive when you have a 45min journey to the city centre at one end.

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

this map says more than 1000 words could say. I think that the whole issue of tearing down the viaducts is a "STRAW MAN" argument and that - jlousa and deasine permitting - this thread should be closed, for the time being anyway.

Please don't shut this down just because Trof found an MS Paint picture. This is one of the few threads on this board that still makes us look like any of us have a brain cell left in our heads. I find it's one of the few places where we get above the petty arguing and actually make points based on logic and reason. . .we're all intelligent, well-read people and in most places on this board it seems like the words 'car', 'european/Tokyo', and 'NIMBY' are just randomly placed when people don't feel like using their brains or defending their arguments. At least people talk rationally in this thread. I recently used many of the sources we've cited as research for a grad paper on the subject and it was a huge help.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

High speed isn't too competitive when you have a 45min journey to the city centre at one end.

The south end of Expo is one of the two major city centres of the region... or will be by the time HSR is built. You could just as easily say that HSR isn't too competitive when it forces all passengers in Metro to terminate at False Creek.

Given the extreme cost of building HSR across the densely populated Burrard peninsula, and in particular of building a high-speed crossing over the Fraser (given that we already have the SkyBridge)... personally I doubt HSR will ever go north of the Fraser.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Zassk

The south end of Expo is one of the two major city centres of the region... or will be by the time HSR is built. You could just as easily say that HSR isn't too competitive when it forces all passengers in Metro to terminate at False Creek.

Given the extreme cost of building HSR across the densely populated Burrard peninsula, and in particular of building a high-speed crossing over the Fraser (given that we already have the SkyBridge)... personally I doubt HSR will ever go north of the Fraser.

Well, it obviously wouldn't be High speed rail north of the Fraser, at least not immediately. More likely would be upgraded tracks. However, there's a lot of dedicated ROW once you cross the tracks, so it's not a stretch to say it could happen.

I'm talking about the location of a terminus, not the placement of high speed tracks the whole way.

Look at London, for example. For 16 years, High speed rail terminated at Waterloo International, using shared slower tracks until last year, when finally, HS1 finished and now High speed tracks now run to King's Cross / St. Pancras.

Terminating in Vancouver would also open up the ability to share the line as an intercity commuter between Vancouver and Chilliwack.


Crossing the Fraser isn't a problem. There's a 100-year old crossing that needs to be replaced anyhow.

[wrenegade]

HSR Would primarily serve the Vancouver-Seattle-Portland route as the Amtrack Cascades route does now. No offense to Surrey, but if I were a tourist/traveller from WA/OR I wouldn't want to take HSR up to Vancouver only to arrive in Surrey City Centre. A transfer and a 45 minute Skytrain line is not part of the experience they want. Like it or not, Downtown Vancouver is the only place HSR can terminate, be it at Pacific Central or Waterfront. Arguably it should terminate at Waterfront to be IN downtown and really close all the hotels, but Pacific Central probably makes more sense from a logistics point of view. I wouldn't say that Surrey shouldn't get a stop, however I see a new ROW being constructed down 176 (or something like that) to bypass the slow track through White Rock. Likely some sort of new rail bridge/tunnel over/under the Fraser will lead track around the Surrey Bend.

With regards to the Viaducts, I am a staunch supporter of them, I don't want to see them go anywhere ever. About the only thing I could accept is to have them terminate at Main street, but I still believe there will be a major hospital on the flats someday and that having the viaducts lead almost directly into the site will be a huge benefit for emergency vehicles. Not to mention the Malkin connector.

[jsbertram]

I wonder how much of this process is to make simple square blocks between Expo Blvd. and Pacific Blvd. so its easier to build boring square buildings there. Anybody can crank out the 'vancouver podium' boxy buildings that are the rage since Expo - just look at anything built along Broadway between Burrard and Cambie in the last decade.

Leave the viaducts there & lets make the architects work, sweat and THINK about how to fit some curvy and linear buildings in the space that is between the viaducts, since those blocks (between Expo and Pacific & Taylor and Main St.) are the ones that some people think can't be developed.

Developers have always found a way to maximize an odd-ball plot of land:


from : http://www.flickr.com/photos/gmpicket/2971384223/in/set-72157608447530793/



from: http://www.bouncingredball.com/2008/12/10/20-really-thin-buildings-and-houses-in-japan/

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I wonder how much of this process is to make simple square blocks between Expo Blvd. and Pacific Blvd. so its easier to build boring square buildings there. Anybody can crank out the 'vancouver podium' boxy buildings that are the rage since Expo - just look at anything built along Broadway between Burrard and Cambie in the last decade.

A very good point. Irregular sites can produce some memorable architecture.

This thread has also driven home the cost of the "no freeway" policy Vancouverites like to pat themselves on the back so smugly for: greatly reduced livability on a number of arterials like 1st and 12th. The naive of course will call for unicorn powered, no-cost rail service for all, but the reality is quite different.

PS There was a great article on the Faltiron Bldg in the NY Times recently:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/realestate/commercial/26flatiron.html?scp=1&sq=flatiron&st=cse

[twoNeurons]

And of course the ever so memorable "Gate Building" in downtown Osaka, Japan:


source ( and interesting article with more pictures )

You'll notice the walls built around the viaduct. They're there to reduce noise ( and they do so quite well )

Interestingly, the structures don't touch and aren't dependent on each other. The can both be dismantled separately without destroying the other. In addition, the highway apparently produces no vibrations inside the building.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by whatnext

A very good point. Irregular sites can produce some memorable architecture.

This thread has also driven home the cost of the "no freeway" policy Vancouverites like to pat themselves on the back so smugly for: greatly reduced livability on a number of arterials like 1st and 12th. The naive of course will call for unicorn powered, no-cost rail service for all, but the reality is quite different.

PS There was a great article on the Faltiron Bldg in the NY Times recently:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/realestate/commercial/26flatiron.html?scp=1&sq=flatiron&st=cse

Of course if we had built freeways. 1st or 12th or some area in between 1st and Hastings would have been one massive freeway.

No I feel we were better off not building the freeways.

[p78hub]

Actually, if the freeway plan from the 70s had gone forward, then it would have been built along the cut where the skytrain tracks currently are, leaving 1st ave and 12th ave largely untouched (see page 7 of this thread). But with the skytrain using that corridor, that option is now unavailable.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by p78hub

Actually, if the freeway plan from the 70s had gone forward, then it would have been built along the cut where the skytrain tracks currently are, leaving 1st ave and 12th ave largely untouched (see page 7 of this thread). But with the skytrain using that corridor, that option is now unavailable.

I believe the plan would of had the freeway in line with the viaducts. So it would have followed Venebles and Georgia. All those houses were going to be knocked down. Which is why there was such an up roar.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by p78hub

Actually, if the freeway plan from the 70s had gone forward, then it would have been built along the cut where the skytrain tracks currently are, leaving 1st ave and 12th ave largely untouched (see page 7 of this thread). But with the skytrain using that corridor, that option is now unavailable.

I thought the freeway through the cut was the "Plan B" after the E-W freeway running from False Creek to Boundary Road was killed (this would have levelled the blocks between Georgia and Venables under an expressway as a continuation of the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts). Without the E-W freeway, these viaducts 'needed' to be connected to something. For the last 40 years they have been connected 'temporarily' to Prior St.

There were provisions set aside for the freeway in Chinatown that are still with us today:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...23.096517&spn=0.001683,0.005493&t=h&z=18

The curved path from Union/Dunlevy to Keefer/Gore marks the eastern edge of what was supposed to be the off-ramp from the freeway into Chinatown. I'm not sure if that land between Gore and this path is still listed at the land titles office as 'future freeway ramp' or if it has been officially re-designated as park space.


The N-S Harbour to Fraser River freeway that was to bulldoze the blocks between Main St and Quebec St never had anything built as far as I know.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

And of course the ever so memorable "Gate Building" in downtown Osaka, Japan:
...

source ( and interesting article with more pictures )

You'll notice the walls built around the viaduct. They're there to reduce noise ( and they do so quite well )

Interestingly, the structures don't touch and aren't dependent on each other. The can both be dismantled separately without destroying the other. In addition, the highway apparently produces no vibrations inside the building.

I found this amazing example of building around transit viaducts:

[WarrenC12]

^^^^^^^^

Looks photoshoped.

There's also the New West project.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I thought the freeway through the cut was the "Plan B" after the E-W freeway running from False Creek to Boundary Road was killed (this would have levelled the blocks between Georgia and Venables under an expressway as a continuation of the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts). Without the E-W freeway, these viaducts 'needed' to be connected to something.

The 1968 transportation plan called for a direct E-W link between Union and Prior (the Union-Prior corridor) through Strathcona, which would have resulted in all homes demolished - and of course the anti-freeway activists had wind in their sails.

The 1972 plan was to have the least impact upon residential areas - ergo the E-W route would have traversed the industrial False Creek Flats, the Cut, and the rail line/industrial areas east of Nanaimo. Had the previous crazy plans from 1968 not been brought forward the likelihood of completion of the Cut freeway would have been that much better.

There were provisions set aside for the freeway in Chinatown that are still with us today:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...23.096517&spn=0.001683,0.005493&t=h&z=18

The curved path from Union/Dunlevy to Keefer/Gore marks the eastern edge of what was supposed to be the off-ramp from the freeway into Chinatown. I'm not sure if that land between Gore and this path is still listed at the land titles office as 'future freeway ramp' or if it has been officially re-designated as park space.

Interesting. From the 1968 transportation plan, it appears that was actually to be a frontage road as opposed to a freeway off-ramp.



http://voony.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/freeway68.png

[TransitJack]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I found this amazing example of building around transit viaducts:

I can't find the link, but the City of Richmond also had some concepts/guidelines for developments along #3 road that would incorporate the C Line into the structure.. Not so much completely encasing the line, but having close proximity and/or overhangs that are close the the guideway. I think the intent is to incorporate the guideway into the built form of future projects.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

I don't know who you hang around with, but everyone I know is far more likely to make the trip downtown now with three SkyTrain lines heading directly in. It is, and will remain for a long time, the place to see and be seen. Downtown is not dying.

downtown isn't dying - but residents outside of downtown really don't have to go downtown for anything anymore - you can get all your needs met outside of downtown and the majority of jobs these days are not in the CBD

that was my point - its not that important or needful for people these days to go to the CBD

they go down because they choose to go down and like myself skytrain is the best option

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

The 1968 transportation plan called for a direct E-W link between Union and Prior (the Union-Prior corridor) through Strathcona, which would have resulted in all homes demolished - and of course the anti-freeway activists had wind in their sails.

The 1972 plan was to have the least impact upon residential areas - ergo the E-W route would have traversed the industrial False Creek Flats, the Cut, and the rail line/industrial areas east of Nanaimo. Had the previous crazy plans from 1968 not been brought forward the likelihood of completion of the Cut freeway would have been that much better.

I knew the original plan was to demolish the homes in Strathcona. The 2nd option might have gone ahead as you said if the first option had never been brought up. But because people were so pissed off about the first option. It wouldn't of mattered as no option was ever going to be built after that.

[red-paladin]

I'm sure glad the freeways weren't built. However, it would have been good if the eastern ends of the viaducts went to some kind of east west route, even if it would look like the Grandview Highway.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I'm sure glad the freeways weren't built. However, it would have been good if the eastern ends of the viaducts went to some kind of east west route, even if it would look like the Grandview Highway.

I thought it might be an idea to put the eastern ends of the viaduct into a tunnel (not a terribly long one) then curve them northeast to emerge on the waterfront into an expressway heading east parallel to the railway tracks, link up with the Ironworkers Bridge / Highway 1 >> then continue along the waterfront parallel to the railway tracks east to port Moody as a smaller parkway.

This would take heavy traffic off East Hastings through Burnaby, provide access into and out of the CBD without ploughing up neighbourhoods, and keep the expressways on industrial land where they would have the least impact on the city and residential areas themselves.

For people who say that this will "encourage" people to take their cars downtown, and increase congestion, my counterpoint is that the cars are already there, people are going to drive if they want to, but if aligned with a comprehensive east-west- RRT system, people will just as preferably, or even moreso, take transit.

Cars and vehicular traffic are not going to go away, and people need to bite the bullet and realize that. If we give them an option of a great RRT sysyem, plus an expressway (or arterial parkway) system that is as unobtrusive as possible, we might win on both fronts.