Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by madmigs

I'm not saying this is what should be done, but just looking at a map, without knowing utilization of the other streets in the area, a few ideas came to mind. I do think we need to get rid of the viaducts sooner or later as they are ugly, etc, but I also think that the capacity would need to be replaced along similar routes to the viaducts. Getting rid of the viaducts without some sort of capacity replacement doesn't make a lot of sense especially seeing as those are arterial roads in/out of downtown as well as through downtown.

For the W. Georgia viaduct leading out of downtown, instead of the viaduct could we instead just have W. Georgia go down the hill and merge into Pacific Blvd. Both are one way streets going out of downtown, leading into other arterial roads. The only issues I see with this are we may need to add another lane to Pacific, and complicates traffic patterns for any traffic that heads North off of the viaduct. And we would probably still need an elevated portion overtop of Expo Blvd.

The Dunsmuir viaduct would be a bit more complicated. Traffic headed from Main Street, could take Union Street, and with the viaduct gone, Union could be widened. Union merges then into Expo Blvd, and once the viaduct is gone, add the ability to exit to the right from Expo Blvd onto Dunsmuir(now a surface road) and go up the hill. And for traffic coming from the south, Quebec already merges(or rather becomes) Expo Blvd.

I do not like the "something is ugly so we should tear it down" mentality. The same could be said for skytrain guideways, towers, airports, ski hills etc... all depending on who you talk to.

The problem with this idea is it solves nothing, and actually takes away. Placing all those vehicles on the surface roads is what we are trying to avoid by keeping the ducts. The land under the ducts can be used as social space ( example, the skate park) and for utilities, such as a street car OMC.

Also, putting all those vehicles on the ground also destroys any hope of a pedestrian / cycling friendly environment in the area. This is also why many support keeping the ducts.

Also, the grade for the escarpment would be very steep and would still require some form of built ramp.

Also, let us not forget the new pedestrian path to the water that will be built alongside the new BC Place stadium. Having the traffic on the ducts above, and therefore separated from the path, is much better than having the ducts torn down and having that commercial traffic now running across that path.

Also, many have said how up to 50% of traffic volumes have disappeared due to roadways being taken away. While I agree some of that became transit users, much of it would have become lost economic activity, people deciding to work / shop / do business elsewhere.

And even if the 50% of the viaduct traffic did disappear, that would still lead to 25 000 more vehicles on the surface streets in the area alongside the newly added bike / pedestrian traffic, trams and possibly 30km hour along Hastings.

That all sounds like a bad mix to me.

And yes, i also like your pot SFUVancouver, much of what you said about using the space below and adding good lighting is what I have been advocating on here from the start.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Speaking from a distance, and being absent for civic elections and campaigns, I cannot help the feeling that this city council is, by and large, a group of granola munchers, at least where motor vehicle traffic is concerned. Who voted them in, anyway? Everything that I glean from them is so hippy-dippy. I thought that people were back to biting the reality bullet, as difficult as that may be. And part of that reality is accepting that, like it hate it, motor vehicles (cars, ambulances, delivery vehicles, police vehicles ....) are going to be with us for several generations, and that we have to accept and integrate them into our daily lives. This applies to ALL cities in the developed world, from Vancouver, to Teheran, to Cape Town to Tokyo. Many cities do a very good job at integrating motor vehicles into city life (i.e.: Stockholm, Sweden). We can too, if certain people will get off their fantasyville high horse.

Torfirhen, what you're seeing is the downside of Metro Vancouver continuing to be a collection of smallish municipalities instead of one amalgamated City of Vancouver. The current crew are barely governing as if Vancouver extends beyond a ring 2 km from downtown, let alone the other municipalities. They have no concept of Vancouver's place in Metro or comprehension of the lives of those in Surrey, Richmond etc etc Never mind that many of those people come into Vancouver to work, play and make the city tick. And we wonder why no interesting large office buildings are on the books in the CoV.

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The problem with this idea is it solves nothing, and actually takes away. Placing all those vehicles on the surface roads is what we are trying to avoid by keeping the ducts. The land under the ducts can be used as social space ( example, the skate park) and for utilities, such as a street car OMC.

Also, putting all those vehicles on the ground also destroys any hope of a pedestrian / cycling friendly environment in the area. This is also why many support keeping the ducts.

There isn't all that much land under the viaducts that isn't already road or parking lot. As for the areas under the viaducts that aren't currently utilized are too low to be utilized for much of anything(ie. east of Main). And just because the viaducts aren't there, doesn't mean the land that was under them can't be used for social spaces or utilities.

As for the pedestrian/cycling aspect - there are already two 3 lane arterial roads going through the area, can't get much worse. Besides there are traffic lights where pedestrians/cyclists can cross. Adding more cars to those existing routes, won't change anything in this regard, as either way the only places I can cross are the traffic lights, and having more cars on a particular road for a couple blocks won't impact my safety while crossing at a cross walk.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Also, let us not forget the new pedestrian path to the water that will be built alongside the new BC Place stadium. Having the traffic on the ducts above, and therefore separated from the path, is much better than having the ducts torn down and having that commercial traffic now running across that path.

Umm, the plan I outlined previously would not in any way affect a pedestrian path from BC place to the water as all the traffic that currently utilizes the viaducts would either leave expo blvd or join pacific blvd well before or well after BC Place.

[Alex Mackinnon]

The thing that very few people note is that the viaducts are getting less and less environmentally intrusive as vehicles get better. Pretty soon things like these are going to be common. The high and mighty enviro card won't really hold much weight when you can safely say you aren't emitting a whole much more than a person riding a pedal bike.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

The thing that very few people note is that the viaducts are getting less and less environmentally intrusive as vehicles get better. Pretty soon things like these are going to be common. The high and mighty enviro card won't really hold much weight when you can safely say you aren't emitting a whole much more than a person riding a pedal bike.

Ah, but of course then they will go on about the horrendous carbon footprint required to make low emission vehicles (ignoring most parts can be designed to be recycled). And never mind that their bikes are largely made in Chinese sweatshops.

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

What "bigger and better" thing replaced the Embarcadero Freeway? Are you talking about the historic trolleys that run along the route? I don't think those cost "billions" of dollars nor qualify as "rapid" transit.

That was really only removed due to the damage it sustained in the 1989 earthquake that forced its closure, and the government spent $6 billion upgrading other infrastructure around it. The mayor who decided not to re-build it was swiftly kicked out of office, as the rather large politically powerful neighborhood (ironically, Chinatown) strongly opposed that. It, however, was not vital infrastructure or a major way of moving goods and services.

Perhaps, when Vancouver is hit by the BIG one, it may not choose to re-build the viaducts depending what mayor is in power

But there is no justification to spend tens (or hundreds) of MILLIONS demolishing them.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Torfirhen, what you're seeing is the downside of Metro Vancouver continuing to be a collection of smallish municipalities instead of one amalgamated City of Vancouver. The current crew are barely governing as if Vancouver extends beyond a ring 2 km from downtown, let alone the other municipalities. They have no concept of Vancouver's place in Metro or comprehension of the lives of those in Surrey, Richmond etc etc Never mind that many of those people come into Vancouver to work, play and make the city tick. And we wonder why no interesting large office buildings are on the books in the CoV.

^Thank you for that insightful feedback. Perhaps the time has come - meaning that it's now or never - to amalgamate the GVRD (or most of it, anyway) into one, large city, the way Toronto did back in the early 60s, when a similar group of municipalities became Metropolitan Toronto. This idea is anathemma to many people, esp NIMBY types. But Vancouver now is the same size population-wise, that Toronto was in 1960, and is facing the same growth pains they faced when becoming a big city.

This topic has been raised before on this forum, but it is maybe now time to push it forward. The way things are at present, it seems that things are stagnating. A Metroplitan Vancouver may be the best, if not only, answer to making the city move forward .... though many would disagree .......

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

The thing that very few people note is that the viaducts are getting less and less environmentally intrusive as vehicles get better. Pretty soon things like these are going to be common. The high and mighty enviro card won't really hold much weight when you can safely say you aren't emitting a whole much more than a person riding a pedal bike.

Good point.

Mayor Gregor, leading by example, was seen riding around town in this electric munchkin mobile:



Source: Calgary Herald

Just this past Friday, Mayor Gregor was also promoting the Toyota Prius Plug-In Hybrid (PHV) in order to make Vancouver the greenest city on the planet:

"We're aiming for 15% of all new vehicles to be electric or hybrid over the next decade, which is part of our goal to make Vancouver the greenest city in the world by 2020," said Mayor Gregor Robertson. "With Vancouver aggressively promoting electric vehicle infrastructure on our streets and in our buildings, the Toyota Prius Plug-in is a welcome addition to our city."

http://www.auto123.com/en/news/green-whe...plugs-in-with-the-prius-phv?artid=121058


And Mayor Gregor is also advocating alternative forms of vehicular transportation such this new-fangled version of the horseless-carriage aka the Mondo Spider:

(albeit I certainly wouldn't want to get caught behind one of these on the viaducts )



Source: Flickr/dogsbody

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Good point.

Mayor Gregor, leading by example, was seen riding around town in this electric munchkin mobile:

Exactly. And the Nissan Leaf is almost here:
http://www.nissan.ca/vehicles/ms/leaf/en...d&utm_campaign=G_Nissan+Leaf+-+Nameplate

There is no reason a majority of commuter trips can't and won't be made with such vehicles. Instead of destroying infrastructure, why isn't Vision focusing on providing the infrastructure plug-in electrics will require?

[worldwide]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Ah, but of course then they will go on about the horrendous carbon footprint required to make low emission vehicles (ignoring most parts can be designed to be recycled). And never mind that their bikes are largely made in Chinese sweatshops.

this is true... if you buy a pile 'o' 🞵🞵🞵🞵 bike from say Canadian Tire, Costco etc. any real bike should be made in a quality manufacturing facility. I have a Japanese made road bike and a USA made track bike. sweatshop? I don't think so

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

The thing that very few people note is that the viaducts are getting less and less environmentally intrusive as vehicles get better. Pretty soon things like these are going to be common. The high and mighty enviro card won't really hold much weight when you can safely say you aren't emitting a whole much more than a person riding a pedal bike.

the actual tailpipe emissions have little to do with the need to reduce automobile dependency in urban areas. It has a lot more to do with space (the viaducts take up a lot of space) space for parking, limited road space causing congestion. also pedestrian safety and the degradation of the public realm are a huge factor.

... coming from somebody who drove a pickup truck from Langley to downtown Vancouver yesterday

[Yume-sama]

What brand of bike is Japanese, you sly pickup driving dog?

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

That was really only removed due to the damage it sustained in the 1989 earthquake that forced its closure, and the government spent $6 billion upgrading other infrastructure around it.

I know the story, I'm calling into to question your claim that the capacity of that freeway (70,000 vehicles per day) was directly replaced with some equivalent alternative.

Your $6 billion dollar figure is for seismic retrofit of the Bay Bridge structure and its approaches. The massive new eastern span, on the other side of the Bay soaks up the majority of that. This money has nothing to do with the Embarcadero area. There's been no major reinvestment in replacing the capacity of this freeway with anything beyond a surface road with a few streetcars.

There were dire predictions about traffic jams, economic stagnation and whatnot, but the reality is that the city functions fine. The Embarcadero waterfront area is amongst the nicest in the city, Chinatown didn't die, and the best place to find traffic jams is on the freeways themselves. Nevermind the hundreds of millions of dollars in economic spinoffs, from the revitalization of the Ferry building to the creation of new neighbourhoods. The city is more beautiful and economically vibrant as a result.

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

^Thank you for that insightful feedback. Perhaps the time has come - meaning that it's now or never - to amalgamate the GVRD (or most of it, anyway) into one, large city, the way Toronto did back in the early 60s, when a similar group of municipalities became Metropolitan Toronto. This idea is anathemma to many people, esp NIMBY types. But Vancouver now is the same size population-wise, that Toronto was in 1960, and is facing the same growth pains they faced when becoming a big city.

This topic has been raised before on this forum, but it is maybe now time to push it forward. The way things are at present, it seems that things are stagnating. A Metroplitan Vancouver may be the best, if not only, answer to making the city move forward .... though many would disagree .......

Maybe start with Burnaby, I'm not too sure if New westminister would be willing to join because it is a historic city.

[racc]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I'm looking at a map right now. I've zoomed out to see the 'big picture' of metro Vancouver from Downtown to Surrey.

Other than a few blocks between Columbia St and Stadium Station where SkyTrain and the Viaducts run beside each other, there is no correlation between the people using Skytrain (coming from Burnaby - Metrotown area, New Westminster and Surrey) and the vehicles using the viaducts (coming from the Burnaby - SFU area and the Vancouver - Hastings area)

It's an unfortunate reality that simply removing the viaducts won't change drivers into transit users, but makes them frustrated drivers instead. This is especially true when there isn't a viable SkyTrain option for people travelling east of downtown along the Hastings corridor.

Even if there was a SkyTrain line on the Hastings corridor that makes the commute easier, you would still have the commercial traffic that needs to use their vehicles to service the downtown area. Making it harder for them to get downtown only makes their costs go up - costs that are ultimately passed on to YOU the consumer.

You missed the West Coast Express and the Millennium Line. By the time the Viaducts would be replaced there will likely also be the Evergreen Line. Commuters from the east have plenty of options. Plus, the capacity of the Viaducts is really only needed at rush hour so only around 10,000 vehicles would be affected at all. I think there are around a million trips to and from downtown a day. It is obvious that removing the Viaducts will have only a very small impact. As well, if they are replaced with housing, a few thousand people could walk downtown instead of driving.

Judging by the high number of people turning left on to the Viaducts from Main and travelling from 1st and 12th down Commercial and Victoria to Venables and Viaducts, it certainly appears that most of the vehicles on the Viaducts are not using Hastings but instead corridors that parallel the SkyTrain.

Commercial vehicles mostly travel in non-peak hours anyway so the impact again will be minimal. And, since you mentioned it, how about stopping driving. The congestion caused by you and the other drivers in the region is driving up the cost of goods way more than replacing the viaducts ever would.

[jlousa]

All Millennium traffic and when it's built evergreen traffic will pile onto that existing Expo line, there is only the one line there and it is getting closer and closer to capacity with each passing year. Thinking that even 10K extra people could pile on it during rush hour is not feasible w/o mega expense. Not sure where you are going to get thousands of additional extra people living in the area by knocking down the viaducts. We've been over this a dozen times, there is close to 0 new sqftage able to be accommodated by removing the viaducts, you would gain flexibility in how to accommodate that sqftage but there would be no increase as the fsr would still be limited to the same ratio.
I really do not get the hatred that some forumers have for the viaducts, did they kill your mother or steal your dog? They are elegant, acutally remove traffic from the pedestrian level, do not impede connectivity, every street under it has trough access. Why not tackle the railyards while you're at it, they are a much larger eyesore and actually disconnect the gird.

[Yume-sama]

You know what's even more inconvenient? The Burrard Inlet. Think of how many homes (affordable, even!) you could build by filling it in.

Since, you know, the Viaducts wouldn't actually clear up any space. At all.

And don't worry about losing the port. It'd be a lesson in self reliance. We'd eventually learn how to make our own stuff. And who needs all the modern dohickeys and conveniences anyways, well other than evil planet polluters that pretty much hate the Earth and you. Besides, if we got desperate enough, the rest could be imported by Wonkavision. I mean, if they had it in the 1970's...

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by jlousa

All Millennium traffic and when it's built evergreen traffic will pile onto that existing Expo line, there is only the one line there and it is getting closer and closer to capacity with each passing year. Thinking that even 10K extra people could pile on it during rush hour is not feasible w/o mega expense. Not sure where you are going to get thousands of additional extra people living in the area by knocking down the viaducts. We've been over this a dozen times, there is close to 0 new sqftage able to be accommodated by removing the viaducts, you would gain flexibility in how to accommodate that sqftage but there would be no increase as the fsr would still be limited to the same ratio.

Uhh if the viaducts are removed, two giant blocks are opened up at the east end, which could easily house a few thousand people. Also the area which has those giant tanks/empty lots besides the skytrain, would also be opened up for condo development. Even if say the decision is made to cut the viaducts off at Main street, that still opens up the one whole block plus most of another on either side of Main.

[worldwide]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

What brand of bike is Japanese, you sly pickup driving dog?

its a Norco Magnum GT road bike, made by Nishiki in Japan.

[Alex Mackinnon]

You guys do realize the link was for an electric motorcycle right?

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by madmigs

Uhh if the viaducts are removed, two giant blocks are opened up at the east end, which could easily house a few thousand people.

There's a huge tract of unused land called the False Creek Flats two blocks to the south, which could easily house 50,000 people and has even better rapid transit service, so I don't buy your argument in the least.