Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

That's akin to saying if moon comes out at night. It's just common knowledge, backed up with enough documented evidence even here on SSP, combined with personal experience.

The moon is always out, you just can't see it sometimes because of the sun. Statistics would be awesome.

[trofirhen]

if they tear down the Viaducts now, wait 15 or so years. They'll be a big push to reconstruct them, or something like them, as Vancouver grows inexorably bigger, the number of vehicles increase, and trying to do it with transit alone won't meet needs.

As I said, wait.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Correct and life is more liveable in that regard. Nevertheless, both I and everyone else still need to meet with either clients or service providers and, as such, need to travel to either downtown Vancouver or elsewhere within Metro Vancouver on many days.

Even then, I still have my home office that provides me with further options throughout the day. And I'm probably lucky in that regard.

"Everyone" does not need to meet clients or service providers.

In your case yes because of your job it requires to to travel to areas outside of your main work location.


But for some people they only ever work in one location, assuming they don't change jobs. So if the LRS enables them to have a job that isn't in downtown and they can live close to that job. Even if they do drive to work. As region we have won based on that one person. They spend less time in their car. Which gives them more time to do the personal things they would like to do.

[Canadian Mind]

Why can't a trial be done where the viaducts speed is greatly reduced down to the average speed on surface streets, 20-30kph, and analyse traffic flow patterns?

I'm personally for keeping the viaducts, and my guess would be that alot of viaduct traffic would convert to using surface streets. Hopefully will show the mayor and council that if they want to keep the surface streets bike, pedestrian, and streetcar freindly, that they would want to keep the Viaducts.

Or of course if more traffic on local streets is the result, they could develop the perverse opinion that removing the viaducts simply isn't enough to cut traffic. From there I could see them closing or limiting surface streets to traffic aswell.

Of course, I also think a series of tunnels could be constructed under downtown so that traffic going to/from the Lions Gate Bridge from the South and East don't have to drive through downtown to get to the bridge. One tunnel could approach from the south following the basic route of Granville. The southern terminus being near the bridge on the south side of False Creek, or a pair of ramps from Granville once on the penninsula, and it could intersect or merge with a tunnel travelling west to east from Stanely Park to the eastern edge of the ducts.

This would lead to two scenarios:

A. Keep the ducts, and build the tunnel underneath.

B. Remove the ducts, and have the tunnels eastern terminus at Main st.

Of course I could also see the argument being put fourth that if you are going to construct 3-4km worth of vehicle tunnels downtown, why don't you just put a tunnel all the way underneath the inlet to North Van?

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Why can't a trial be done where the viaducts speed is greatly reduced down to the average speed on surface streets, 20-30kph, and analyse traffic flow patterns?

I'm personally for keeping the viaducts, and my guess would be that alot of viaduct traffic would convert to using surface streets. Hopefully will show the mayor and council that if they want to keep the surface streets bike, pedestrian, and streetcar freindly, that they would want to keep the Viaducts.

Or of course if more traffic on local streets is the result, they could develop the perverse opinion that removing the viaducts simply isn't enough to cut traffic. From there I could see them closing or limiting surface streets to traffic aswell.

Of course, I also think a series of tunnels could be constructed under downtown so that traffic going to/from the Lions Gate Bridge from the South and East don't have to drive through downtown to get to the bridge. One tunnel could approach from the south following the basic route of Granville. The southern terminus being near the bridge on the south side of False Creek, or a pair of ramps from Granville once on the penninsula, and it could intersect or merge with a tunnel travelling west to east from Stanely Park to the eastern edge of the ducts.

This would lead to two scenarios:

A. Keep the ducts, and build the tunnel underneath.

B. Remove the ducts, and have the tunnels eastern terminus at Main st.

Of course I could also see the argument being put fourth that if you are going to construct 3-4km worth of vehicle tunnels downtown, why don't you just put a tunnel all the way underneath the inlet to North Van?

You mean something like this?

First Narrows tunnels connecting Taylor Way with Granville St.

Red lines are the main tunnels; Blue and Green lines are the tunnels connecting the E-W streets into the main tunnels.

I was thinking this should be a bypass tunnel for people who don't need to be downtown (bypassing downtown to get from Broadway in Vancouver to the TCH in West Van.

Modern tunnelling machines can do this with minimal disruption of the surface.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

You mean something like this?

First Narrows tunnels connecting Taylor Way with Granville St.

Red lines are the main tunnels; Blue and Green lines are the tunnels connecting the E-W streets into the main tunnels.

I was thinking this should be a bypass tunnel for people who don't need to be downtown (bypassing downtown to get from Broadway in Vancouver to the TCH in West Van.

Modern tunnelling machines can do this with minimal disruption of the surface.

[img]...[/img]

And a variation connecting Taylor Way with Oak St.

[geoff's two cents]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_dig

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/11/16/big_dig_pushes_bottlenecks_outward/

[jlousa]

I get a kick out of the above plans, does anyone really think they would happen with the current administration? They are removing road throughput, they do not have any interest in increasing it.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_dig

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/11/16/big_dig_pushes_bottlenecks_outward/

Nice cites on the Big Dig. Take note:

"The Big Dig was not some magic wand that was going to make traffic congestion all over metropolitan Boston disappear - that was never the claim," said Larson, who says the overall traffic picture is improved.

Removing through traffic from downtown Vancouver and Stanley Park and placing it in a tunnel would make life better for its residents, pedestrians, and even cyclists.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_dig

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/11/16/big_dig_pushes_bottlenecks_outward/

That second article should be required reading for all transportation planners.

Ask yourself... if you had $22 billion dollars... what would you do with it?

Imagine how many greenways, transit lines, high speed rail you could build in Boston with $22 billion dollars.

That's 10 Canada Lines folks!!!

A 5-6km bypass tunnel connecting Vancouver with its north shore will not happen unless the families in the British Properties get together and decide to pay for it.

To be honest, a tunnel (2km) would be more useful under 1st Avenue from Clark to Renfrew.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I get a kick out of the above plans, does anyone really think they would happen with the current administration? They are removing road throughput, they do not have any interest in increasing it.

I for one think that it would not matter who is the current administration in the City of Vancouver. Those kinds of plans will more than likely never be built.

One reason is that any party running on a platform to build something like that. More than likely would not win an election in Vancouver.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I get a kick out of the above plans, does anyone really think they would happen with the current administration? They are removing road throughput, they do not have any interest in increasing it.

I kinda think that it's always good to see visions of what 'could be' decades down the road - that does not mean that it's either practical or financially viable. I also believe that everyone here probably concedes that's the case. The proposals would cost $billions$ and contravenes the CoV's transportation plan at the present time. It's obvious that same is not on their radar screen. Something for them to look at decades down the road perhaps.

Nevertheless, let's analyze a couple of the short segments, which are realistic and have merit.

1. MoT has studied a 4-lane tunnel from the Taylor Way interchange at Hwy 1 to the Lions Gate Bridge bridgehead for thru traffic. Doesn't mean that it's gonna happen but it has been studied by a private engineering firm and it's financially/technically viable and would make WV more liveable in that regard.

2. The Vancouver Parks Board has previously voted to eliminate the causeway by 2030. Stanley Park is owned by the federal crown, leased by the CoV, and the causeway is under MoT jurisdiction. Many cross jurisdictions involved in that one. I doubt that the closure of the causeway will ever happen, but should it happen, a twinned LGB with a 6-lane cut and covered tunnel to meet the 6-lane Georgia St. would make sense and solves that problem. That option was even on the table during the late 1990's but the then financially strapped provincial government chickened out.

Frankly, the 1st Narrows as well as 2nd Narrows crossings will always be there for vehicular traffic irrespective of what the parks board has previously decreed and other 3rd crossing proposals that will never happen. Only these two corridors are financially and realistically viable.

The rest of jsbertram's proposal southbound is a financial pipe-dream that will never happen in our lifetimes but it's always good to look at proposals. Never say never. Call it a transportation fantasy for now.

Edited to add: A twin 'bored' 4-lane tunnel thru the Kicking Horse Canyon of Hwy 1 has been pegged at ~$200 million/km. Of course that's without numerous tunnel exit ramps envisioned by jsbertram but one can do the math.

[Alex Mackinnon]

You really don't need 6 lanes of bridge to meet 6 lanes of Georgia. The free flowing lanes on the bridge side will have much more capacity available than the non free flowing lanes of Georgia and the surrounding streets. In order to keep back ups from extending back to the intersections you just need a sufficiently long merge lane.

If you had 6 bridge lanes the bottleneck would always be the Georgia and Denman traffic light, or the Marine Dr. traffic lights on the north shore. Atleast until free flow intersection start getting installed.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

You really don't need 6 lanes of bridge to meet 6 lanes of Georgia. The free flowing lanes on the bridge side will have much more capacity available than the non free flowing lanes of Georgia and the surrounding streets. In order to keep back ups from extending back to the intersections you just need a sufficiently long merge lane.

If you had 6 bridge lanes the bottleneck would always be the Georgia and Denman traffic light, or the Marine Dr. traffic lights on the north shore. Atleast until free flow intersection start getting installed.

Think of the other streets and the fact that more traffic would get on/off at Georgia.
I think 4 lanes from Taylor Way to Marine, 6 (or dare I say, 8) from Marine to Georgia, and 4 past that would be good enough. A few more connectors (i.e. from Marine to NB tunnel for easy access to 1) could make it easier as well.
I also approve with the Oak St corridor vs. Granville St. corridor. Wouldn't serve the airport as well but since that's not the purpose of the tunnel anyway it's still a very good option. I also don't think there needs to be a long tunnel branch extending to Capilano - that would make the bridge upgrades already necessary even more complex - and remember there's only barely enough room for 6 lanes of Hwy 1 east of there so it wouldn't work out very well. Continuing north on Taylor for all #1 access would make more sense.

Other than all that hub-bub above I really don't think a tunnel completely bypassing downtown is necessary. A new Lions Gate (twinned?) bridge/tunnel would work though. Maybe they could pull a "Tacoma Narrows" and create a Lions Gate clone that could house 3-4 lanes of extra traffic.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

I kinda think that it's always good to see visions of what 'could be' decades down the road - that does not mean that it's either practical or financially viable. I also believe that everyone here probably concedes that's the case. The proposals would cost $billions$ and contravenes the CoV's transportation plan at the present time. It's obvious that same is not on their radar screen. Something for them to look at decades down the road perhaps.

Nevertheless, let's analyze a couple of the short segments, which are realistic and have merit.

1. MoT has studied a 4-lane tunnel from the Taylor Way interchange at Hwy 1 to the Lions Gate Bridge bridgehead for thru traffic. Doesn't mean that it's gonna happen but it has been studied by a private engineering firm and it's financially/technically viable and would make WV more liveable in that regard.

2. The Vancouver Parks Board has previously voted to eliminate the causeway by 2030. Stanley Park is owned by the federal crown, leased by the CoV, and the causeway is under MoT jurisdiction. Many cross jurisdictions involved in that one. I doubt that the closure of the causeway will ever happen, but should it happen, a twinned LGB with a 6-lane cut and covered tunnel to meet the 6-lane Georgia St. would make sense and solves that problem. That option was even on the table during the late 1990's but the then financially strapped provincial government chickened out.

Frankly, the 1st Narrows as well as 2nd Narrows crossings will always be there for vehicular traffic irrespective of what the parks board has previously decreed and other 3rd crossing proposals that will never happen. Only these two corridors are financially and realistically viable.

The rest of jsbertram's proposal southbound is a financial pipe-dream that will never happen in our lifetimes but it's always good to look at proposals. Never say never. Call it a transportation fantasy for now.

Edited to add: A twin 'bored' 4-lane tunnel thru the Kicking Horse Canyon of Hwy 1 has been pegged at ~$200 million/km. Of course that's without numerous tunnel exit ramps envisioned by jsbertram but one can do the math.

I think you'd have better luck selling ice to an Eskimo than you would of ever having any future administration in Vancouver even thinking of building such a thing.

The only way something like this would ever get built. Even if we are only talking about the third crossing and not the whole idea. Would be if the provincial government forced Vancouver to build it.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_dig

Interesting that the state-commissioned post-implementation study (which seems like it would be the one likeliest to paint the rosiest picture) claimed well under $200 million dollars in annual economic benefits. That means it would take well over 100 years to recoup the $22 billion dollars in economic costs of the project.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by cabotp

I for one think that it would not matter who is the current administration in the City of Vancouver. Those kinds of plans will more than likely never be built.

One reason is that any party running on a platform to build something like that. More than likely would not win an election in Vancouver.

Of course they wouldn't, be it Vision, the NPA or COPE.

Just one more reason amalagamation is needed to force some intelligent regional planning onto our little corner of the world.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by cabotp

I think you'd have better luck selling ice to an Eskimo than you would of ever having any future administration in Vancouver even thinking of building such a thing

Those two segments that I described are under provincial jurisdiction and have been studied by MoT. Nothing to do with the City of Vancouver. The City itself will never build anything road-related within its borders.

And if something was to be built within its boundaries decades down the road (say tunnels) - that would require extensive provincial/federal financial involvement.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Of course they wouldn't, be it Vision, the NPA or COPE.

Just one more reason amalagamation is needed to force some intelligent regional planning onto our little corner of the world.

I'd rather jump off a bridge before I ever support amalgamation. There is is no way in hell some person from Surrey or any other city in this region is ever going to tell me in Vancouver what to do. Call it self centred, call it whatever you want.

If you want amalgamation. Then I say all the cities should get together and force Surrey to start building condo towers. Lets have a massive knock down of detached homes. Be damned with the people who live in them.

It goes both ways.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by cabotp

I'd rather jump off a bridge before I ever support amalgamation. There is is no way in hell some person from Surrey or any other city in this region is ever going to tell me in Vancouver what to do. Call it self centred, call it whatever you want.

If you want amalgamation. Then I say all the cities should get together and force Surrey to start building condo towers. Lets have a massive knock down of detached homes. Be damned with the people who live in them.

It goes both ways.

It does indeed go both ways. And majority rules.