Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[jlousa]

The city has issued a very short timeline rfp for "URBAN DESIGN AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANT FOR CONCEPTUAL PLANNING OF THE VIADUCTS"

I could bother dissecting it for consumption but after going over it I don't have much appetite to do so. I'll just post a link to the document for all to read.

Source:
http://vancouver.ca/fs/bid/bidopp/RFP/documents/PS11523-SF-RFP.PDF

I did find the following quote from Geoff Meggs to be of interest on another site.

In my opinion, Frank’s concerns have been carefully covered in the work so far — engineering staff believe there are a number of options to ensure that traffic moves, including new rapid transit investment and new connections to improve the grid. The city’s chief engineer and head planner say the real question is what the area could be without the Viaducts, given the conclusion that traffic issues can be managed. On this question, people like Frank can let their imaginations loose. Last March, I watched Frank help adjudicate a series of studies by architecture students on what could be done in the area on a whole range of options, from eliminating the viaducts completely, to partial removal, to full removal. It was a stimulating morning and I came away energized by the range of options.
I believe Frank’s concerns are important, but would like to hear how someone of his experience would make the area come alive, freed from the requirement to maintain a freeway stub the city rejected in 1971. As city engineer Peter Judd said at an SFU forum organized on this topic in April, the job of the engineers is to ensure that the infrastructure serves the city’s needs, not the other way around. What is the community’s vision for this crucial area in our city, bounded by some of our oldest and newest neighbourhoods?
This is the discussion the new study on the Viaducts and East False Creek Flats is opening up.

Hopefully the report is of some use to the next council, don't beleive the current one requires the report.

[tybuilding]

• Video Link

lessons-from-san-francisco/

In 1989, a 7.1 earthquake struck the Bay Area which severely damaged many of its elevated highway structures. The Embarcadero Freeway - an ugly, double-decked highway - was replaced with a grand boulevard which emphasizes access to the waterfront and provides people with transportation options like walking, mass transit, and bicycling instead of an emphasis personal vehicle use. In this 12 minute mini-doc, you'll see some of the dramatic changes and how all users benefit when planning takes a pedestrian and people-first attitude.

[Metro-One]

Well thank goodness then that our viaducts are not double decked and have not been severely damaged by an earthquake. Also not to mention that the open spaced design of our ducts allow free mass transportation and pedestrian movement under them (and on them).

Again, apples to oranges.

It should also be noted that there are many other high road capacity arteries still accessing downtown San Fran, unlike our ducts where they are the only high capacity route for the east west direction.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Also, now the only E-W main road which doesn't have a 30km/h speed limit.

[Mousey]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Also, now the only E-W main road which doesn't have a 30km/h speed limit.

That still baffles me on Hastings. The only people who would actually follow that are student drivers and police officers. Why even bother? I can see how it stops people from driving 70+, but that's about it. Got to worry about homeless people darting out in to traffic on a major arterial... Build a small center median with a tall fence.

[jlousa]

The 30km/hr makes prefect sense if you think longer term. When the city tears down the viaducts they can increase the limit back up to 50km/hr and point out that they increased capacity on a parallel route.

[DKaz]

I follow the 30.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The 30km/hr makes prefect sense if you think longer term. When the city tears down the viaducts they can increase the limit back up to 50km/hr and point out that they increased capacity on a parallel route.

But for the rolling eyes, I wouldn't be entirely sure that you're joking here.

[DKaz]

Sarcasm.

[Mousey]

Originally Posted by DKaz

I follow the 30.

I wouldn't be proud of admitting to that lol.
I had to travel a small part of Hastings today EB between Abott-Carall. That 30km/h speed limit that I saw, annoyed me. I certainly did not follow it, but the car beside me did. (It may have been you ) I went screaming by him without even thinking about it, since I was on it for maybe 10 seconds. Does it increase congestion along Hastings during rush hour with having such a ridiculously low speed limit? It must to some degree.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Mousey

That still baffles me on Hastings. The only people who would actually follow that are student drivers and police officers. Why even bother? I can see how it stops people from driving 70+, but that's about it. Got to worry about homeless people darting out in to traffic on a major arterial... Build a small center median with a tall fence.

Wait a sec, cops follow the limit?

The buses don't even follow it.

[DKaz]

I enjoy 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 people off from time to time with my law abiding ways. Coming to a complete stop at four way stops for example. I usually go 10 over the speed limit except in school and park zones which I take seriously. Hastings and Columbia (New Westminster) I do in protest to show the city planners how ridiculous the speed limit is. 40 would be more reasonable, but if I'm in a rush I'll do 40 on Hastings and I normally don't go on Columbia anyway, Royal Ave is the alternative.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Mousey

That still baffles me on Hastings. The only people who would actually follow that are student drivers and police officers. Why even bother? I can see how it stops people from driving 70+, but that's about it. Got to worry about homeless people darting out in to traffic on a major arterial... Build a small center median with a tall fence.

NO worries about homeless people darting out into traffic on the viaducts ...

[whatnext]

Just heard on News1130 that Suzanne Anton has confirmed Meggs viaduct study is DOA if the NPA are elected.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Just heard on News1130 that Suzanne Anton has confirmed Meggs viaduct study is DOA if the NPA are elected.

So she's just going to let the area be developed willy-nilly without any forethought as to what's going to happen in 20-30 years when the viaducts reach end-of-life?

[jlousa]

The viaducts have 40 plus years left in them if minimally maintained. There is no reason that the viaducts couldn't be around in 100yrs if desired.

[amor de cosmos]

new contest:

Context

The utility and necessity of the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts has been an issue of polarized debate since they were reconstructed in their present form in the late 1960s. As the first piece of a larger freeway system that was planned but never realized, they stand as a symbol of an era of city-building that thankfully never more-fully materialized.

With forty years lapsed since the ribbon cutting, the utility and merit of these structures continue to be debated topics in our city. Through this discussion one thing has become increasingly clear as Vancouver’s central peninsula continues to build out: whether they stay or go, a far better future for the structures or the lands beneath them can be imagined.

the details:
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/reconnect/brief.htm

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by amor de cosmos

.... since they [the viaducts] were reconstructed in their present form in the late 1960s.

I realize that this fact may be a quibble, but the viaducts (the Dunsmuir viaduct the latest) were opened circa 1972.

In any event, the Burrard Street Bridge was opened circa 1932, ~40 years earlier than the 'ducts.

In that same vein, the Granville Street Bridge was opened circa 1954, ~18 years earlier than the 'ducts.

I will wager that the BSB and the GSB will be around for ~ another 100 years with proper maintenance and refurbishment. Think Brooklyn Bridge or otherwise.

Now I can understand why some folk residing north of King Edward Ave. and west of perhaps... hmmmm... Clark Drive (?) have an entire different view of the 'ducts and impacting their "urban lifestyle", but their strategic importance for the CoV (as a whole) and metro Vancouver overrides that concern IMHO. (Don't let the fact that the 'ducts can't be torn down because they are part of the regional Translink "Major Road Network" get in the way).

From a political perspective, if one of the NPA's platform planks is, in fact, that the 'ducts removal study is DOA if the NPA receives a majority.... they have just increased their potential vote share within the "entire" city of Vancouver. With the overall negative political feedback to date on this scheme and from my political junkie perspective... you can bank on that!!! Really.

[twoNeurons]

Slight correction: The viaducts can't be torn down by the city of Vancouver. Metro Vancouver (Translink), however, can.

I think the contest is a good start. It will hopefully stir up some good ideas on how the space under and around the 'ducts can be better utilized.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by amor de cosmos

new contest:



the details:
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/reconnect/brief.htm

Cool... there's a VERY detailed Google Sketchup of the area:

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/reconnect/skp/extendedcontext.zip