Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts? - Page 81

tybuilding · #**1601** Posted **Apr 11, 2011, 5:35 AM**

http://vimeo.com/21509646

Jon Norquist begins with Vancouver (which never built freeways), touches on the cities that removed elevated freeways, and ends with the cities that are trying to remove freeways.

Metro-One · #**1602** Posted **Apr 11, 2011, 7:47 AM**

An interesting, yet obviously biased video. Again it fails to mention how many or the routes torn down duplicated existing high capacity highways, so essentially they were redundant and were never really needed.

Also, if one looks at the design of all those elevated highways shown, they are / were all far more invasive and difficult to built around (low, many, many closely spaced pillars, etc...). Again, our viaducts are actually very elegant in design and are easily workable into the local urban fabric.

Also, I think many of us can disagree to how they say Vancouver has no traffic problems. One of the worst days of my life was trying to get from Richmond to North Van, so happy i have to do that only once in a blue moon when working.

Also notice how many of those structures that were torn down were at the end of their life span, were literally falling down on their own and / or heavily damaged by an earthquake

Also, don't forget that even if the ducts are completely torn down, the grade of the escarpment is still too steep for a surface road along Georgia, so some form of a ramp will still have to be built, and unless this ramp is extended to at least half the length of the ducts now, its low ceiling height in regards to its slope will make the pedestrian experience far worse around GM Place.

Again, these ducts do have a lot more validity to existing than many shown in that video.

PS - one of the major points that video was making was how the areas near those freeways were in dire need of a boost in real-estate prices, i don't think with the tower proposals already shown around the viaducts and the insanely high real-estate prices throughout vancouver that issue is much of a concern in our situation, hahahahaha!

whatnext · #**1603** Posted **Apr 11, 2011, 3:27 PM**

Very good points. If the viaducts were nearing the end of their useful life, then I could see the point of this whole exercise. As it stands now, the whole thing comes across as a pet project of former Strathcona resident Councillor Meggs, who thinks he is refighting the battles of the late '60's with Mike Harcourt.

To those who went to the forum, was the issue of the escarpment even raised?

Alex Mackinnon · #**1604** Posted **Apr 11, 2011, 4:37 PM**

I asked Harcourt what he though of the idea of a Malkin connector a while back and he was fairly supportive of the idea.

aberdeen5698 · #**1605** Posted **Apr 11, 2011, 4:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

If the viaducts were nearing the end of their useful life, then I could see the point of this whole exercise.

I agree. What's worth doing right now is to develop a plan for what the street grid will look like when the viaducts are torn down at end-of-life so that development between now and then can be designed to integrate properly into it.

Zassk · #**1606** Posted **Apr 11, 2011, 5:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I agree. What's worth doing right now is to develop a plan for what the street grid will look like when the viaducts are torn down at end-of-life so that development between now and then can be designed to integrate properly into it.

Since the Malkin Connector (with intact viaducts) is on the City of Vancouver official plans, and tearing down the viaducts is not, it seems to me that development should be designed to integrate with the Malkin plan.

trofirhen · #**1607** Posted **Apr 11, 2011, 8:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

I agree - those are the most elegant .........

If the viaducts are brought down to grade and terminated in a level intersection at Main street
- what you'd have is a wide intersection that's as pedestrian unfriendly as Main and Terminal.

I think I read somewhere that the overpasses were lit originally - I think the strip under the edge was a lighting feature at one time.

FYI: The original lighting on the Port Mann was like that.

As for the rest esp the bolded statement . YES!

DKaz · #**1608** Posted **Apr 11, 2011, 8:56 PM**

Is the Malkin Connector real?? I though it was just a concept from one of our members.

Metro-One · #**1609** Posted **Apr 11, 2011, 9:12 PM**

The Malkin connector would be fantastic for the city, especially since on the Broadway thread someone has mentioned that the city wishes to reduce vehicle capacity on Kingsway as well, making it a tram / pedestrian orientated street.

So again, even more now since the plan is to reduce capacity on hastings, Kingsway and Pacific, it seems that these viaducts and the proposed Malkin connecter would be even more desired to keep and have them essentially become the only high*er* capacity east / west route in Vancouver.

trofirhen · #**1610** Posted **Apr 11, 2011, 9:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The Malkin connector would be fantastic for the city, especially since on the Broadway thread someone has mentioned that the city wishes to reduce vehicle capacity on Kingsway as well, making it a tram / pedestrian orientated street.

So again, even more now since the plan is to reduce capacity on hastings, Kingsway and Pacific, it seems that these viaducts and the proposed Malkin connecter would be even more desired to keep and have them essentially become the only high*er* capacity east / west route in Vancouver.

I looked at Malkin Ave on Google and see its potential. But would it simply exit into the existing arterial road system, or would it somehow be extended? What adaptations would be made?

Stingray2004 · #**1611** Posted **Apr 11, 2011, 11:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKaz

Is the Malkin Connector real?? I though it was just a concept from one of our members.

Yep. She's the real McCoy:

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Here's the Malkin Connector proposal from the False Creek Flats rail study:

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/currentplanning/fcflats/pdf/oct08railcorridorstrategy.pdf

jsbertram · #**1612** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 3:50 AM**

Updating one of my previous posts:

I've done a quick map of the West and East Malkin connectors:

By jsbertram at 2010-06-20

The Red line shows a new extension of the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts that stays elevated east of Main St but curves south before reaching Gore, staying elevated over Prior St. Once these viaduct extensions are south of Prior St. the roadway drops to ground level to connect with the western portion of Malkin Ave.

The Blue line is the long-discussed Malkin Connector that joins the eastern portion of Malkin Ave to Clark Dr. The primary purpose of this new connector is to let commercial traffic access the industrial areas along Malkin Ave, Raymur Ave and Glen Dr without being interrupted by the railway traffic that is moving between the waterfront rail yards and the False Creek rail yards.

With the new West Malkin Connector and East Malkin Connector in place, Prior St east of Main St would no longer need to be be a truck route - trucks would be required to to use Malkin (and the new Malkin connectors) to access Downtown and the industrial areas along Malkin. Prior St would become more of a residential street again and wouldn't have a direct connection to the viaducts, but Strathcona-ites could still get to / from downtown using the Jackson Ave / Atlantic St / West Malkin Connector intersection.

This change gives commercial traffic an easier route to downtown that passes through already-industrial areas along Malkin Ave, while at the same time it lets Strathcona along Prior become a residential area again. The commercial traffic is already using Clark Dr, so this gives that traffic an easier route to and from the downtown area via Clark Dr.

Venables east of Raymur Ave would likely stay as a truck route because of the industrial needs along it, but it won't be possible to use Venables via Prior to get downtown.

Anyone needing to use Expo or Pacific for False Creek will still use Terminal and Quebec for their routes.

WBC · #**1613** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 4:23 AM**

Two points I would like to make

1) I have a feeling that the entire Viaduct business has become a new version of the downtown streetcar project that has been Vancouver city council's favorite daydream up until the point Translink and the Province told them that they will get the money for it when pig's fly. So the council dropped that idea and has now focused on the next cutesy idea that they heave dreamed up.

As with downtown streetcar any movement on this depends on Translink as they own the viaduct. Just imagine this proposal going to Translink where the rest of the region will be looking at removing a piece of regional transportation infrastructure so that Vancouver can build more condos. The chances of this happening is about 0. Even the report acknowledges this by using time frames of 5-20 years. That is eons for an average city council. So good luck with that.

I am not even bothering to argue whether or not this makes sense in terms of traffic, etc. I am just arguing that from the regional perspective this idea is dead in the water.

2) I cannot understand how can anybody seriously use Olympics to prove or disprove any theories about traffic, transit or people movement in general. This is equivalent to using Indy car race to claim that you can safely drive 200 miles / hour around downtown and that speed limits should be raised.

s211 · #**1614** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 2:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WBC

2) I cannot understand how can anybody seriously use Olympics to prove or disprove any theories about traffic, transit or people movement in general. This is equivalent to using Indy car race to claim that you can safely drive 200 miles / hour around downtown and that speed limits should be raised.

Stop making sense. Meggs' greenshirts will find you and you'll mysteriously disappear.

officedweller · #**1615** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 8:16 PM**

Nice map.

*******
I don't think TransLink owns the Viaducts, does it?

tybuilding · #**1616** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 10:06 PM**

The trouble I see with this new route is traffic coming from Venables to 1st Ave east now has 3 options to spread out the traffic, Clark, Commercial and Victoria.

This Malkin Connector would limit the traffic to just one route/intersection, Clark drive.

I suppose this is one of the good things about the new route?

trofirhen · #**1617** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 10:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

Stop making sense. Meggs' greenshirts will find you and you'll mysteriously disappear.

old hippiy-dippys (Meggs) are hard to get rid of

Zassk · #**1618** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 10:27 PM**

It disturbs me that the Malkin Connector won't line up with an east-west artery on the other side of Clark Dr.

But it will still be better than having all of that traffic on Prior and Venables. And it will let the city close the rail crossing on Venables, as they have wanted to do for a long time.

The Malkin Connector will be a huge win for Strathcona and Chinatown. And it requires the viaducts.

Stingray2004 · #**1619** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 10:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

I don't think TransLink owns the Viaducts, does it?

No. The city built and owns the viaducts. The Georgia viaduct is, however, part of Translink's 'Major Road Network'.

officedweller · #**1620** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 7:04 AM**

Thanks. Which means that TransLink would ahve to be consulted before removal.

Cool pic of new and old Georgia Viaduct, with Dunsmuir Viaduct under construction, posted at Stephens Rees' blog by David:
(Coinicidentally, the pic shows that land in and around the viaducts can be used and has in the past been used.)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2589/4038505585_08e67331cd_b.jpg