Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by racc

Uh, no. It is a problem with media coverage and how people are reacting. The city is planning on doing pretty much what you are suggesting. The Viaduct planning will be integrated with the new transportation plan and the planning for the False Creek Flats.

Dude, were you at the latest meeting?

The chairman (whatever his name is), Brett, and Geoff together said at least a dozen different times that, "it is assumed that traffic will continue to decrease and various other transit modes will increase." As a part of that, they said they assume that transit access will increase.

When asked if they actually had a plan to deal with the traffic, the answer was a resounding no. The only thing they had to offer was that traffic would be absorbed into the adjacent networks. Actually, in the powerpoint presentation, there was a slide that showed a sketch of Expo and Pacific being diverted to Georgia and Dunsmuir up a pair of ramps. The ramps were damn near as long as the viaducts.

I don't know about you, but I don't trust any government that pushes forward what is a potentially $150 000 000 plan, not to mention economic impacts, or the livability impacts on the surrounding neighbourhoods, without first studying these impacts.

Anyways, the city is looking for concepts on what people think the area should look like. So maybe we should start submitting suggestions that both include and not include the viaducts. Either they'll come to their senses, or if worst comes to worst, at least we'll have influenced the potential outcome (hopefully for the better).

[mr.sandbag]

this debate is a total waste of time. the city should be looking at ways to incorporate the viaducts into upcoming developements. Aqulina (spelling is horrible but whatever) is at least trying to do this with the Roger Arena towers, i would like to see more pressure put on concord and any other land owner down there, to place commercial/office space below the viaduct with condos above the viaduct with expanded sidewalks, etc. think of the elevated rail line in NY that has been turned into a park. there are better options then just ripping it down.

lets fund that study first.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by mr.sandbag

this debate is a total waste of time. the city should be looking at ways to incorporate the viaducts into upcoming developements. Aqulina (spelling is horrible but whatever) is at least trying to do this with the Roger Arena towers, i would like to see more pressure put on concord and any other land owner down there, to place commercial/office space below the viaduct with condos above the viaduct with expanded sidewalks, etc. think of the elevated rail line in NY that has been turned into a park. there are better options then just ripping it down.

lets fund that study first.

That's what everyone on here save for a select few individuals is purporting. sadly it is getting us nowhere.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by mr.sandbag

the city should be looking at ways to incorporate the viaducts into upcoming developements. Aqulina (spelling is horrible but whatever) is at least trying to do this with the Roger Arena towers, i would like to see more pressure put on concord and any other land owner down there, to place commercial/office space below the viaduct with condos above the viaduct with expanded sidewalks, etc. think of the elevated rail line in NY that has been turned into a park. there are better options then just ripping it down.

lets fund that study first.

Development taking place today will last much longer than the viaducts will. The issue is in deciding what we'll do once the viaducts reach end-of-life and how can we anticipate that in today's developments.

That was my understanding of the reason this study was undertaken, and on that basis I think it's an excellent idea. I'm not convinced that we'll be able to accurately anticipate the area's needs 20 to 30 years from now, but with environmental issues, rising oil prices and car usage trending downward, I think it's a worthy exercise to at least ask the question.

[Millennium2002]

I actually like that reasoning... the need to go into a rational discussion about how the developments surrounding the viaducts should work with or without a replacement of the structure after it reaches the end of its life.

The only problem is that the debate has become so heated and exaggerated at the present time to the point that it no longer functions like a rational discussion, but rather it has become more of a polarized, political, and angry debate with two entrenched camps for and against the viaducts (and its replacements) respectively. In such an environment it's no wonder why no one expects anything other than thoughtless rhetoric to emerge.

[DKaz]

I still like my idea.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

The only problem is that the debate has become so heated and exaggerated at the present time to the point that it no longer functions like a rational discussion, but rather it has become more of a polarized, political, and angry debate with two entrenched camps for and against the viaducts (and its replacements) respectively. In such an environment it's no wonder why no one expects anything other than thoughtless rhetoric to emerge.

The pro-viaduct people acting like the city wants to tear down the viaducts tomorrow are the greatest hindrance in this debate. The city has conducted a study which states that their removal would be 10-15 years in the future, granted that sufficient alternative modes of transportation are in place. One may disagree with that but acting like the sky is falling TODAY becomes tiresome and prevents any rational debate. I'm more or less ambivalent about the viaducts, so it's not like I feel the need to adhere strongly to either side.

[GMasterAres]

I don't think it is a bad debate either way. It has to be discussed because if you just look wholistically at the area around them, the 'feel' isn't quite the same as the rest of downtown Vancouver. You can argue either way that they make it easier or more difficult to construct higher densities or bring a community feel, but it should still be looked at.

You also have to take into consideration the trends Vancouver council have been moving towards for the past 10-20 years. Every single council has been strongly against the notion of "moving people through Vancouver." That's why you've seen such large arguments against regional infrastructure improvements such as replacement of the Lion's Gate bridge, expansion of the road network into Vancouver from South Surrey/Delta, and even the Gateway HW1 expansion.

Same goes here at the macroscopic scale. I think Vancouver council current and past see the viaducts as surving only the purpose of moving people through Vancouver. As such they latch onto the notion that if the viaducts were gone and the infrastructure was made more community oriented (which does make it more difficult for cars) that less people will use downtown Vancouver as a means of getting through the area.

It would also push traffic down other roads.

The only issue I've had in thie entire debate is the notion of cutting off Georgia Street. I can understand that regionally the 'through' part of Georgia ends when you hit Howe/Seymour and that the viaduct itself isn't part of Highway 99. But it is still a major route, one of the very few major routes east-west through Downtown Vancouver (I'd argue it is the only major one) so making it terminate on 1 end would just be stupid.

But, any plan would be incomplete without looking at all options and all alternatives. So the questions have to be asked, what if. If they are to conclude that leaving Georgia as a through route on both ends is the best idea, they have to look at closing it off and finding out WHY that would be stupid. I can sit here and think it is stupid but that's just opinion and I'm not trying to argue the fact to voters in an official capacity that an official plan would require.

I do like DKaz' ideas at the top though. They are quite interesting.

[David]

Love your ideas, Dkaz. That's pretty much exactly what I've always envisioned for the future of the viaducts.

[Metro-One]

I don't mind Dkaz's ideas because it addresses my main issue of dead ending Georgia, but I highly doubt the city shares this same vision is keeping the surface streets as "car friendly" as Dkaz has shown them, and there is the major problem. Also, are the grades not too steep? The ramps may have to be extended another 50 to 100 meters to ease such a steep grade.

[DKaz]

Thanks all. Metro-One, Gerogia to Pacific is 7.2%, Expo to Dunsmuir is 7.5% (will allow minimum 4.5m clearance to Abbott underneath), and Dunsmuir to Adanac bike lanes are 6% since their ramp stretch out further since they only need 2.4m under the Skytrain guideway. These grades are more or less the same as the existing ramps at Main.

There is no increase in road lanes, just a reconfiguration to suit the new connections downtown and to suit bike lanes and streetcar ROW. This is truly a win win situation for everyone, traffic will flow better, we will make better use of existing surface roadway capacity, and we partially remove the aging viaducts to allow for more development.

[Metro-One]

oh, haha, to me the numbers looked like they said 15% and 12%

I was thinking, geesh, thats steep!

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Development taking place today will last much longer than the viaducts will. The issue is in deciding what we'll do once the viaducts reach end-of-life and how can we anticipate that in today's developments.

That was my understanding of the reason this study was undertaken, and on that basis I think it's an excellent idea. I'm not convinced that we'll be able to accurately anticipate the area's needs 20 to 30 years from now, but with environmental issues, rising oil prices and car usage trending downward, I think it's a worthy exercise to at least ask the question.

On that basis it is an excellent idea. Unfortunately so far the focus of the study has been to find benifits for the removal of the viaducts, and how to best implement a removal policy. Very little care or attention is being put towards what should be done with the viaducts once they reach the end of their lifespan.

[Canadian Mind]

I'm going to throw weight behind DKs idea. It's obvious what the city wants done, so might as well make the best of it.

Questions though. If you're going to maintain only 2 lanes on Dunsmuir, why not scale Georgia back to 2 lanes? Might give the city more reason to support your plan, and allow for a more fluid merger of Pacific and Georgia. Also, why the big curve at Terminal Ave? Couldn't you just maintain the intersection the way it is?

[SFUVancouver]

Dkaz, I love your first image idea for the viaducts but feel that your second image for the Terminal and Quebec intersection is unwarranted. I don't think that anything other than a 90-degree T intersection is required and your idea would require the acquisition of a fair chunk of the property to the south of the Main Street SkyTrain Station at Quebec and Terminal. Plus the road geometry is condusive to vehicles making the turn at speed, which is unrealisitc at that intersection, what with the necessary signal phasing, pededestian and bicycle traffic, and most importantly the lovely time sink which is the Main and Terminal intersection. At most an eight to ten vehicle platoon will be able to turn left onto Terminal from Quebec during an advanced left signal and I don't see how a conventional 90-degree T intersection fails to facilitate this. But once again, well done with imagining how the viaducts will meet grade.

[WBC]

This is what Meggs had to say about closing 800 block of Robson for traffic:

But Vision Vancouver Coun. Geoff Meggs noted many West End residents are anxious for the return of the No. 5 direct line down Robson Street. “There’s a huge hunger for more public space, there’s no question about it, but this is a vital link to the West End,” Meggs said. “Council has received a lot of letters from seniors and others in the West End who had their bus route significantly rerouted, often far out of their way, to get around Robson when it was closed. The city also doesn’t have the power to simply order it closed without consultation with the province of B.C., which owns Robson Square, and TransLink, which runs the route across it.”

Read more: http://www.vancourier.com/news/Petition+calls+free+Robson+Square/5329349/story.html#ixzz1Wd5kikPg

Wow! So the city CANNOT close one of it's own local streets for traffic, but CAN pay for studies designed to not only close but completely remove the viaduct that is actually part of the regional network and maintained by Translink.

So let me get this - it's fine to tell to 20,000 commuters a day to take another route downtown or take transit, but to try to tell seniors that they cannot pass by the art gallery on their way between English Bay and Church of Scientology is borderline criminal.

Or is it a problem that some other city councillor suggested this and thus stole your thunder Meggs?

Or is it that Concord Pacific does not need this land?

Or is it that we actually don't care about pedestrians and livable space?

Which one is it Meggs? I am confused.

[whatnext]

Hopefully Meggs will make the rumoured jump to provincial politics and this silly idea will disappear,though not without having squandered a couple hundred thousand taxpayer dollars.

[Metro-One]

Money that I would love to have seen spent on graffiti removal or increased street, sidewalk and boulevard cleaning.

I just moved to south van yesterday (still unpacking), and while the neighborhood i am renting in is nice, the amount of garbage along Marine Way and around Marine sky train station is disgusting.

And the amount of graffiti along M-Line from Commercial to highway 1 is getting beyou8nd ridiculous. Our city is becoming much more of a dump than it was 5 years ago it seems. Would love to see more money put towards actually keeping or parks and urban environment clean 9if we really want to be environmental).

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Money that I would love to have seen spent on graffiti removal or increased street, sidewalk and boulevard cleaning.

Urban planning or street cleaning, make your choice! We can't possibly do both at the same time.

[Metro-One]

In this instance i think the money should have gone to street cleaning, seeing how cleaning up garbage is both beneficial to the environment and helps increase a pleasant pedestrian experience, immediately.

Or it would have been nice to see this money go towards moving the Vancouver streetcar program forward, which seems to have faded away into nothingness.

Fun note, in the original streetcar plans they were going to use the "useless land" under the viaducts as a cheep and central location for the OMC! Talk about something landing in your lap!