Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by worldwide

who invited the economics textbook?

Nobody. This is a free forum, and anyone can participate as long as they remain civil. By the way, an economics and urban geography course or two would be a good education for granola-munchers. Some people bring enlightenment and knowledge to the forum, and others just boo and hiss because they haven't travelled much, can't contribute an idea whether constructive or not, or just don't have manners. I've slipped up a few times and have been openly reprimanded for it, but it has made me more aware of the necessity of being polite.

[WBC]

Hey, maybe we won't need those viaducts after all. It seems that the number of people driving downtown is down judging by the decreased use of parkings lots. Victory for the environmentalists I guess. But long term - get ready to pay more property taxes Vancouverites (there is a reason why Vancouver is "shifting" tax burden to residential properties you know).

http://tinyurl.com/2cb2n6q

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by WBC

Hey, maybe we won't need those viaducts after all. It seems that the number of people driving downtown is down judging by the decreased use of parkings lots. Victory for the environmentalists I guess. But long term - get ready to pay more property taxes Vancouverites (there is a reason why Vancouver is "shifting" tax burden to residential properties you know).

http://tinyurl.com/2cb2n6q

More of the mayor's handiwork? He'll be pleased, no doubt.

[Yume-sama]

Parking garages are usually used as a sign of the economic times. If they are empty, that's not saying particularly good things about the economy, Downtown.

Don't kid yourself in to thinking people are taking the train or walking from Surrey They are just shopping at malls out of the city.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WBC

Hey, maybe we won't need those viaducts after all. It seems that the number of people driving downtown is down judging by the decreased use of parkings lots. Victory for the environmentalists I guess. But long term - get ready to pay more property taxes Vancouverites (there is a reason why Vancouver is "shifting" tax burden to residential properties you know).

http://tinyurl.com/2cb2n6q

Or perhaps the opposite point is true and people living outside the City of Vancouver (or even in the outer areas of Vancouver) are just giving up on downtown and taking their retail and leisure dollars elsewhere. For example, half the time I go to see a movie I'll go to Riverport where I know there's free parking and easy access.

My argument against the current council acting as if they are governing the Resort Municpality of Vancouver has always been that opportunities for culture, retail, sports etc that depend on a larger base than those who can walk or bike will slowly leave downtown Vancouver as their customer base grows more susbstantially in other areas of Metro.

[Stingray2004]

I dunno. Traffic within Vancouver proper and the downtown peninsula seems to be as busy as ever. It's still a toughy trying to find a parking stall along any of the downtown core's streets.

[Yume-sama]

Yeah, you can't park on the street. But the garages are rarely ever busy, now.

Coming from Calgary, Vancouver parking still seems like a bargain. But, I guess it's like how everyone freaked out when gas was over $1 and now, in Vancouver $1.10 would be a BARGAIN!

In time, I suppose

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by whatnext

My argument against the current council acting as if they are governing the Resort Municpality of Vancouver has always been that opportunities for culture, retail, sports etc that depend on a larger base than those who can walk or bike will slowly leave downtown Vancouver as their customer base grows more susbstantially in other areas of Metro.

The policies prioritizing walking, transit, and cycling have been in place for more than a decade.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by mr.x

...or not even that. There's plenty of sites in the area, or in all of downtown for that matter, that could see further densification.

I too don't see any logic in knocking down critical infrastructure just for more land. And really, knocking it down is the easy way of doing things - why not be creative instead and find ways of integrating the structures with developments and surrounding neighbourhoods.

They may be "ugly," but what have we exactly done to make them look more aesthetically pleasing? We haven't even tried that.

A city can't be all flesh and muscle, it also needs its arteries and veins to work.

The justification for more land is a pitiful excuse...grasping draws at best.




Here's a diagram that deasine made awhile back:
...
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4511616&postcount=86



...
http://forms.rennie.com/GMplace/Survey.html

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...r-1f-b1ER7gwHAcwg&cbp=12,285.51,,0,-1.15

The block east of GMPlace between Expo and Pacific boulevards and between Abbott St and Taylor St is certainly large enough to build several buildings on the site. Even with the overhead viaducts and Skytrain tracks, the lower portion could be retail / commercial space for the first few floors until you are higher than the viaducts, then housing for the rest of the building towers.

This works just fine for Costco / Spectrum on the west side of GMplace, so why wouldn't it work for this block east of GMPlace?

Aquilini seems to have figured out that he can stick some towers on the same block as GMPlace without too much interference from the viaducts. I would argue that these new towers are architecturally more interesting BECAUSE they have to work within the space of the viaducts and boulevards, rather than being just some more 'vancouver podium special' square boxes that have become the default design in recent years.


http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...kDw3qsre7xQ1ZX5-w&cbp=12,124.14,,0,-6.51

The next block east between Taylor St and Columbia St is south of the Andy Livingstone Park. This park was created because the land (former railway yards) was so polluted it was easier to scrape a few feet off the surface & lay a cap of clay over top to 'lock in' the pollution. Because of this contaminated soil, no digging was allowed so the area became a sports field.

South of this block is the land that Concord wants to swap with the Parks Board (between Taylor St and Columbia St / Quebec St south of Pacific Blvd to the water) because it too is heavily polluted from being a railway yard and is better suited as open park space, rather than having to sanitize the dirt removed when building new condos. Concord will now build all their new condos West of Taylor and south of Pacific, and the Parks Board will use this land to extend the waterfront park along the north shore of False Creek towards BC Place.

Since this block is between two patches of land that are heavily polluted & being used as a sports field or waterfront park, I won't be surprised when someone realises this narrow strip of land can't be used for any type of building because it too is heavily polluted from its past life as a railway yard (that the viaducts were built to fly over). This land will likely get the minimum cleanup needed so it also can be turned into park space or sports space and provide a natural connection between Andy Livingstone Park and the False Creek waterfront.


http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...TXIdr2gFDm6d-w_xPig&cbp=12,80.65,,0,3.63

The final block east between Columbia St and Main St has its eastern half filled with the berm supporting the viaducts, and the western half (today an impound lot) is proposed to be the garage for the new streetcar system that was hyped-up during the Olympics.


It appears to me that the viaducts don't have an impact on the re-development of the single block east of GM place, and the other two blocks further east aren't usable for re-development anyhow.
Much ado about nothing.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I completely agree with this plan.

I suggested it earlier that we have Costco Type Developments under/around the viaducts.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

I suggested it earlier that we have Costco Type Developments under/around the viaducts.

Downtown Ikea? =)

[WBC]

Originally Posted by deasine

Downtown Ikea? =)

That would put quality Swedish furniture at hobo's fingertips thus enabling them to beg not on their knees, but in a warm embrace of a bean bag chair

[SpikePhanta]

@jsbertram

thanks for clarifying...
You should send that to city council so they'll remember something.

[s211]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...r-1f-b1ER7gwHAcwg&cbp=12,285.51,,0,-1.15

The block east of GMPlace between Expo and Pacific boulevards and between Abbott St and Taylor St is certainly large enough to build several buildings on the site. Even with the overhead viaducts and Skytrain tracks, the lower portion could be retail / commercial space for the first few floors until you are higher than the viaducts, then housing for the rest of the building towers.

This works just fine for Costco / Spectrum on the west side of GMplace, so why wouldn't it work for this block east of GMPlace?

Aquilini seems to have figured out that he can stick some towers on the same block as GMPlace without too much interference from the viaducts. I would argue that these new towers are architecturally more interesting BECAUSE they have to work within the space of the viaducts and boulevards, rather than being just some more 'vancouver podium special' square boxes that have become the default design in recent years.


http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...kDw3qsre7xQ1ZX5-w&cbp=12,124.14,,0,-6.51

The next block east between Taylor St and Columbia St is south of the Andy Livingstone Park. This park was created because the land (former railway yards) was so polluted it was easier to scrape a few feet off the surface & lay a cap of clay over top to 'lock in' the pollution. Because of this contaminated soil, no digging was allowed so the area became a sports field.

South of this block is the land that Concord wants to swap with the Parks Board (between Taylor St and Columbia St / Quebec St south of Pacific Blvd to the water) because it too is heavily polluted from being a railway yard and is better suited as open park space, rather than having to sanitize the dirt removed when building new condos. Concord will now build all their new condos West of Taylor and south of Pacific, and the Parks Board will use this land to extend the waterfront park along the north shore of False Creek towards BC Place.

Since this block is between two patches of land that are heavily polluted & being used as a sports field or waterfront park, I won't be surprised when someone realises this narrow strip of land can't be used for any type of building because it too is heavily polluted from its past life as a railway yard (that the viaducts were built to fly over). This land will likely get the minimum cleanup needed so it also can be turned into park space or sports space and provide a natural connection between Andy Livingstone Park and the False Creek waterfront.


http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...TXIdr2gFDm6d-w_xPig&cbp=12,80.65,,0,3.63

The final block east between Columbia St and Main St has its eastern half filled with the berm supporting the viaducts, and the western half (today an impound lot) is proposed to be the garage for the new streetcar system that was hyped-up during the Olympics.


It appears to me that the viaducts don't have an impact on the re-development of the single block east of GM place, and the other two blocks further east aren't usable for re-development anyhow.
Much ado about nothing.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.

But one wag (from the City, IIRC) has already said that all that extra land would be great for soccer fields, etc.

LIKE WE DON'T ALREADY HAVE THAT IN PLACE RIGHT NEXT DOOR? grrrr

[city-dweller]

Been away on holiday so it took a while to catch up on the thread.

Most of what SFUVancovuer said a few posts back sums most of my thoughts. I would argue that the study was intiated because pieces of "highway legacy" should be taken care of --i.e. a pet project by a councilor who obviously believes enough of us think the same way. (Someone voted for them)

The next item in this thread to address:the number of bicycles seen or not seen on the viaduct bike lane.

Okay, I get your frustration. You sit there with one less driving lane and 2 bikes go by the entire time you are sitting there. Or, statistics are published that show lower numbers than you think justify the "bike-highway". The problem with this trial and the now permenant Burrand street bike lane is connectivity. The bike system in Vancouver needs a strong "backbone" the same way the skytrain system forms the backbone of the regional transit system. The piecemeal approach underleverages the full capacity of a complete bike network. I am actually suprised with some of the numbers reported as being higher than I would have thought with an incomplete bike network. Be patient and let the Vancouver bike Tzar finish.

Next item: Vancouver, Vancouver, everthing Vancouver.
Maybe it is just a reflex, but I get irritated with the Vancouver-centric opinions for long-term projections. (stop...risk of off-topic)

Next item: Car vs all other modes.
Lets just polarize the issue and make it granola-crunchers vs. gas-guzzlers so much simpler. (sarcasm- I notice a few people don't know if they are not told) Anyway, many NPA voting people are pro-bicycle agenda. To give Robertson et al. the credit is just ignoring all the previous work. I would say Robertson has the spine to build permanant infrastructure in highly visable and politically risky areas. He gets on most people's nerves because he vilifies the car driver and fosters the anti-car sentiment. I support cement, not just paint for bike infrastructure. I also support giving car users real alternatives including bike lanes and street cars, but drop the car-bashing.

Next item: Viaducts as an asset (1)
Why not use the viaducts as exclusive access for commercial vehicles. The businesses would love it. The environmentalists would settle for no SOV(cars). The one type of vehicle you want out of congestion is the trucks. You could even sell expensive passes for those who want the same access. (I believe the realignment with the Clarke road connector would take the trucks a less residential route. - I would support this if it was for trucks only.)

Last item: Viaducts as an asset (2)
The Viaducts also would be an asset to implementing any toll system for entering downtown. The city is not ready for a toll system yet. I believe with the entire conceptual street car system (all stages) built, there would be enough local and regional transit in place to allow for a toll system to work. (2025?)

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by s211

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.

But one wag (from the City, IIRC) has already said that all that extra land would be great for soccer fields, etc.

LIKE WE DON'T ALREADY HAVE THAT IN PLACE RIGHT NEXT DOOR? grrrr

What would you do with an odd-ball piece of land between Andy Livingstone Park and the False Creek waterfront?

basketball courts?
Tennis Courts?
Skateboard park?
Water park & fountains?
BMX park?
Night market?
festival grounds?
As development progresses, Cirque du Soleil will need to find a new space for their tents.
Farmers market?

(off the top of my head)

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

What would you do with an odd-ball piece of land between Andy Livingstone Park and the False Creek waterfront?

basketball courts?
Tennis Courts?
Skateboard park?
Water park & fountains?
BMX park?
Night market?
festival grounds?
As development progresses, Cirque du Soleil will need to find a new space for their tents.
Farmers market?

(off the top of my head)

There is already a skate park under the viaducts.

I would like to see something similar to a carnival on the waterfront Mr.x suggested in the past.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by city-dweller

You could even sell expensive passes for those who want the same access. (I believe the realignment with the Clarke road connector would take the trucks a less residential route. - I would support this if it was for trucks only.

Why bother though? Even if it were extended to Clark it's not as though the Malkin Connector would shave off more than a couple minutes off your commute, so you'd end up with an underutilized piece of high capacity infrastructure. I would support making it a HOT lane if it went a longer distance, but people right now drive several Km to go over the Port Mann to avoid a toll, with less benefit this would just not work.

By all means fire up the TBMs if you want to collect tolls going from Hwy 1 to downtown or from the Knight St Bridge, but with a short section of largely paralleled road like the current viaducts you want to have the bulk of your traffic flowing over it if possible. If traffic is going to go downtown anyways, you may as well have it go efficiently and around residential areas.

[jlousa]

Hate to revive this thread but there is news to report, and I know it's going to be controversial.

Viaduct study rfp issued by the city, A very tight schedule for such an important matter, the contract will be issued mid Oct and they expect the results by Jan 4, 2011. The following sections caught my eye as they are definitely worded in such a manner that would imply they are looking for a certain outcome.

Deliverable 3 - Future Traffic Volumes

This section will develop an estimate of potential future traffic volumes entering the downtown by mode.

i. Based on history of increasing trips but reduced vehicle traffic volumes entering the downtown and a shift to transit, develop forecasts of volumes by transportation mode and link for future forecast years of 2020, 2030 and 2040; and

ii. Include scenarios of increased regional transit service that could reduce vehicle traffic volumes (Evergreen Line, UBC Line, rapid transit on Hastings, increased capacity or frequency of West Coast Express, etc.) as well as potential corresponding horizon years.

Deliverable 4 - Potential for Diversion

This section will use the information from deliverables 1 to 3, data collection, current network evaluation and future traffic volumes to evaluate removal of some portion(s) or all of the viaduct(s).

1) Based on the origins and destinations of trips into the City’s downtown core, provide a summary of the vehicle volumes that would be diverted to alternate routes if the viaducts were;

i. completely removed (retaining access to GM Place);
ii. capacity reduced by 50% (which could be achieved by partial removal, ramping down or connection of the viaducts); and
iii. capacity reduced by 20% (which could be achieved by bringing them down to Main Street).

2) Based on previous experience of removing transportation capacity (Burrard Bridge bike lane, Canada Line construction, Olympic experience, etc.) examine the ability of other routes to carry the volumes (by time of day, weekday and weekend) for the three scenarios without traffic diverting into adjacent neighborhoods

i. Estimate the volume of vehicles that would need to be displaced in order to not surpass the roadway carrying capacity. Based on the future reductions identified above, identify horizon years where these capacity reductions may be possible; and

ii. Based on the origins and destinations of people entering into the downtown, what options are there to divert more people to transit? Are any of these in existing plans? Are there any other options?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The following sections caught my eye as they are definitely worded in such a manner that would imply they are looking for a certain outcome.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. If you're going to develop a plan for 10-30 years in the future then it makes perfect sense to consider the alternative scenarios that could reasonably happen in those timeframes.

I'd be more concerned about the maximum 30-year forecasts, which seem short given the expected 50-year-or-so service life left in the viaducts.