Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Uh oh. That has a bad smell to it.......
........
And now the CoV's so-called manager of strategic transportation planning says that the Main Street overpasses are an "urban design concern"? Who hires these boneheads, with their piecemeal approach, anyway?!

The City council ... elected by the People of Vancouver...

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

However, they are very sleek clear-spans with clean lines and I find them to be the most "attractive" part of the entire viaduct system. Furthermore, they would provide a direct link to a future St. Paul's Hospital.

More importantly, the Main Street overpasses would directly link to the future Malkin Connector taking traffic away from Strathcona. The "False Creek Flats Rail Corridor Strategy" dated October 30, 2008 has identified the Malkin Connector as "The highest potential for community benefit."

Absolutely agree - there are very clear sightlines under the long span cantilevers of the overpasses and they are very clean design compared to any of the local bridges (i.e. no post and beam).

Having a street level intersection at the Viaducts and Prior Street will be recreating a Main and Terminal intersection in terms of volume and timing for traffic light cycles. That may not be the best for pedestrians on Main St.

Agreed that it could also mean the death of the Malkin connector.

[tybuilding]

It is good to have a discussion about these topics. I am glad we have forward thinkers in the Lower Mainland even back in the 1970's when they decided to not have a freeway into downtown. When you travel to areas in the states where sprawl was left unabated you really appreciate the density we have even in the suburbs which is more dense than suburbs elsewhere. Fly into Dallas Fort Worth area. The built up area covers an area of 60 km by 100 km! Florida? It is basically one big sprawl. Problems come the sprawl as well, temperatures rise, ecosystems are ruined or changed and air and water pollution rises.

I am a little torn over what exactly to do with the Viaducts. I wouldn't mind keeping them. I do see some possibilities such as filling up the land around by building condos and parks below to above it. Costco type developments spring to mind. On the roof tops of the lower structures you could have green space and you could still keep the streets below. You could also add connecting walkways between buildings over the below streets.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

It is good to have a discussion about these topics. I am glad we have forward thinkers in the Lower Mainland even back in the 1970's when they decided to not have a freeway into downtown. When you travel to areas in the states where sprawl was left unabated you really appreciate the density we have even in the suburbs which is more dense than suburbs elsewhere. Fly into Dallas Fort Worth area. The built up area covers an area of 60 km by 100 km! Florida? It is basically one big sprawl. Problems come the sprawl as well, temperatures rise, ecosystems are ruined or changed and air and water pollution rises. ...

Well, except we ended up getting the sprawl going up the valley anyway, we just don't have a good freeway connection to downtown. Its our geography that will constrain further sprawl, not lack of a freeway.

I agree with the posters above that this move seems likely to kill the Malkin Connector which is bad news for movement of goods. As to the Main St overpasses, they function nicely as a gate to Chinatown, rather than cutting it off from anything.

[aberdeen5698]

Sooner or later the viaducts will reach end-of-life, and then they'll have to come down. Long before then, a whole ton of development is going to go in around them.

It makes a whole lot of sense to study what the alternatives will be when the viaducts reach end of life so that the development occurring before then can take that eventuality into account.

But as for taking them down now? No, I don't think so.

[Zassk]

The viaducts have been determined to have 50 years of life left in them. They will probably outlive many of the adjacent buildings being built today, as the cycle of redevelopment will eventually see those buildings torn down after 3-5 decades whether they are at end of life or not. Personally, I think the viaducts' age has been proven to be a non-issue.

[Gordon]

The major issue with demolishing the viaducts is the removal of vehicle capacity into and out of the downtown core from the east. Hastings & Pender are already fairly congested add 8 or 10,000 more vehicles to these 2 streets would be a gong show. Pender also has bus lanes in both directions.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Gordon

The major issue with demolishing the viaducts is the removal of vehicle capacity into and out of the downtown core from the east. Hastings & Pender are already fairly congested add 8 or 10,000 more vehicles to these 2 streets would be a gong show. Pender also has bus lanes in both directions.

But the city's stacked with "experts" who, without a molecule of reality in their heads, point to the Olympics as as complete success in illustrating the viaducts' lack of usefulness.

[Zassk]

Then repurpose the viaducts - for bikes, buses, streetcars, LRT, whatever. It's absurd to tear down 80-year infrastructure after 30 years just because you don't like cars. They're valuable even if you take cars out of the picture.

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by whatnext

As to the Main St overpasses, they function nicely as a gate to Chinatown, rather than cutting it off from anything.

When's the last time you walked that stretch of Main?

The viaducts are obviously not the sole reason for the disconnect between the north and south sides on Main street, and it's not impossible to rebuild the neighborhood around them.

But, in its current condition, it's obvious to me from a pedestrian perspective that the black hole created by that particular overpass (which itself ploughed through and destroyed Vancouver's only Afro-Canadian neighborhood) needs particular attention if there is ever going to be a viable streetscape connecting both sides.

I would wager, for instance, that not enough thought was put into designing the retail on the east side of the Gateway project. Councilors of the day evidently thought that "If you build it, they will come" without any particular care taken to ensure that the retail streetscape along that side of Main needed to be particularly open and inviting to help offset the psychological and spatial barrier presented by that particular overpass.

I'm not saying that tearing the 'ducts down is the only option. But planning around them will require an extra effort if we want the end result to be a safe, viable neighborhood.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

When's the last time you walked that stretch of Main?

The viaducts are obviously not the sole reason for the disconnect between the north and south sides on Main street, and it's not impossible to rebuild the neighborhood around them.

But, in its current condition, it's obvious to me from a pedestrian perspective that the black hole created by that particular overpass (which itself ploughed through and destroyed Vancouver's only Afro-Canadian neighborhood) needs particular attention if there is ever going to be a viable streetscape connecting both sides.

I would wager, for instance, that not enough thought was put into designing the retail on the east side of the Gateway project. Councilors of the day evidently thought that "If you build it, they will come" without any particular care taken to ensure that the retail streetscape along that side of Main needed to be particularly open and inviting to help offset the psychological and spatial barrier presented by that particular overpass.

I'm not saying that tearing the 'ducts down is the only option. But planning around them will require an extra effort if we want the end result to be a safe, viable neighborhood.

Like most visitors to Chinatown, I've driven or taken the bus. If Chinatown had to rely on people who walked there, it would have been dead a long time ago.

As has been pointed out numerous times upthread, there are 1001 interesting things the city could do with lighting etc to make the viaducts an interesting feature, and wouldn't cost a king's (mayor's?) ransom.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Like most visitors to Chinatown, I've driven or taken the bus. If Chinatown had to rely on people who walked there, it would have been dead a long time ago.

As has been pointed out numerous times upthread, there are 1001 interesting things the city could do with lighting etc to make the viaducts an interesting feature, and wouldn't cost a king's (mayor's?) ransom.

While I'm more for keeping the viaducts, the point you've made above is very weak. Why aren't visitors going there in the first place? Maybe because the portion from Main Street to Chinatown itself isn't that pedestrian friendly?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by deasine

While I'm more for keeping the viaducts, the point you've made above is very weak. Why aren't visitors going there in the first place? Maybe because the portion from Main Street to Chinatown itself isn't that pedestrian friendly?

"Visitors" doesn't automatically mean "tourists". Folks from the West Side, Coquitlam or Burnaby either drive or take transit. Of course keeping the viaducts as a gateway to Chinatown shouldn't be the main reason for preserving them. It just an example to illustrate how much more creatively could be done with the existing infrastructure.

[SpikePhanta]

When im going to chinatown not by car I just walk from Stadium skytrain since I like the walk...

But from time to time ill walk from Main st. station and just walk down.

Theres no excuse it isnt that bad walking down from the skytrain, and thats coming from a teenager.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by deasine

While I'm more for keeping the viaducts, the point you've made above is very weak. Why aren't visitors going there in the first place? Maybe because the portion from Main Street to Chinatown itself isn't that pedestrian friendly?

I've walked that section a number of times, and the viaducts are by FAR more friendly feeling than walking infront of the Cobalt or Ivanhoe. I don't think people can for sure say the Viaducts ruin Main street because most of Main street already ruins itself, and I don't see how making it the regions busiest intersection would help. It's more of a social issue in that area than something to do with the viaducts. But it's actually already starting to get better as the Eastside gentrifies, even with the Viaducts still there.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by Gordon

The major issue with demolishing the viaducts is the removal of vehicle capacity into and out of the downtown core from the east. Hastings & Pender are already fairly congested add 8 or 10,000 more vehicles to these 2 streets would be a gong show. Pender also has bus lanes in both directions.

I respectfully disagree that traffic is the issue. I believe if you get rid of the viaducts, you must not replace the lost capacity. Just reconnect the grid below. The traffic, amazingly will disperse. It will find other routes, or other modes, and you won't notice. In fact, you'll wonder where the traffic went.

Check out this website for examples of where urban freeways have been demolished. It's not traffic gong show as people on this forum seem to want you to believe. Quite the opposite actually.

Manhattan's West Side Highway, an elevated freeway along the Hudson River, collapsed and was closed in 1973. When it was closed, 53 percent of the traffic that had used this freeway simply disappeared.

http://www.planetizen.com/node/23300

[Yume-sama]

Most of those examples are highly misleading (well, no surprise, when you see what website it's on), and most have already been debunked EARLIER in this thread (I'll leave it to you to search that out) when the same link was posted. Particularly the Seoul example, where the freeway was replaced with multiple ring roads (and many other freeways since), and private car ownership per capita in South Korea has since exploded to the highest percentage in Asia-Pacific.

During the same time period that the freeway was removed, nearly 500km of highways were ADDED in Seoul.

That's not even to mention that comparing the viaducts to a major freeway is completely disingenuous.

Edit: It seems many of that sites own members are pointing out how transparently false many of the examples are, in the comments section.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by lightrail

I respectfully disagree that traffic is the issue. I believe if you get rid of the viaducts, you must not replace the lost capacity. Just reconnect the grid below. The traffic, amazingly will disperse. It will find other routes, or other modes, and you won't notice. In fact, you'll wonder where the traffic went.

Check out this website for examples of where urban freeways have been demolished. It's not traffic gong show as people on this forum seem to want you to believe. Quite the opposite actually.

Manhattan's West Side Highway, an elevated freeway along the Hudson River, collapsed and was closed in 1973. When it was closed, 53 percent of the traffic that had used this freeway simply disappeared.

http://www.planetizen.com/node/23300

Your example has already less cars disappearing than this example.

If 53% of the traffic disappeared that the viaducts currently carries, then you'd be looking at a lot more than 8-10000 cars switching to a new east-west vector.

The viaducts carry 20-40000 vehicles a day. I've heard some numbers as high as 50000 vehicles. 47% of that is still a lot of vehicles.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by lightrail

I respectfully disagree that traffic is the issue. I believe if you get rid of the viaducts, you must not replace the lost capacity. Just reconnect the grid below. The traffic, amazingly will disperse.

Amazing. I wonder if this remarkable phenomenon will happen if we cut bus routes? Bike lanes? Sidewalks? Mail routes? The traffic, amazingly, will just disperse!

I wish someone would actually quantify this phenomenon. Either there are less trips, or they have gone somewhere specific. If we understood what happened in those other cities, then we could say something like:

"Remove the viaducts and X% of people will stop travelling altogether, Y% will switch to buses, Z% will use the reconnected grid, and Q% will switch to another arterial route."

Without putting numbers to these, it is all just handwaving and wishful thinking. You don't know whether you are condemning the DTES by removing the viaducts. You don't know whether there will be gridlock on the reconnected grid. You don't know whether bike travel will be hindered or not.

And it is absurd to tear down 80-yr infrastructure when you don't know what the result will be.

[red-paladin]

...Don't say that.
That encourages the mayor to close them for two weeks as a trial. Then when everyone works from home, as they expect traffic to be hell for two weeks, like during the Olympics, he'll say "See! the traffic disappeared!", and tear them down. Then the real traffic nightmare will begin!