Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

That's not the point. The Georgia Viaduct, as part of the MRN, will never come down as it would require Translink (ie. Metro Vancouver) approval......................... [editing mine/trof]


............. Once it's part of the MRN, it's next to impossible to have the MRN designation removed.

And the Georgia Viaduct will have that MRN designation in perpetuity - unless a new "higher standard", with greater capacity alternative to the Georgia Viaduct comes to fruition - ie. another viaduct or tunnel.

The Georgia Viaduct will still be here in 30 years.

The key question is what will happen to the Dunsmuir Viaduct. If council decides to have it removed - that will look silly. And 15 years from now - or 3 years from now after the next election - an NPA-dominated council will likely rescind any Dunsmuir Viaduct removal - so it's all a moot point IMHO.

You seem up on all this, and I sure hope you're right. I think trashing the viaducts would win the Idiot City Planning Award of many years. Nevertheless.......... IF the viaducts were in fact to be replaced under MRN designation, by a forcibly "higher standard/greater capacity structure," I'd rather see a tunnel. Take it from there, if you will.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think that some of that lane width was eaten up by the Spectrum sidewalk.

Both Dunsmuir and Georgia viaducts had about 5 lanes where they meet Beatty. I'm wondering if that may have been to accommodate additional lanes from the unbuilt north-south freeway.

I kinda think that the twin diaduct landings on the escaprment provided for an additional short two lanes as follows:

1. Georgia Viaduct - short entrance on-ramps/merging lanes from both sides to provide smoother thru traffic flow.

2. Dunsmuir Viaduct - again - short exit off-ramps from both sides to provide smoother thru traffic flow.

These connections to the downtown core would be the terminus of the Van City/downtown core to contemplated Hwy 1 free-flow connection.

I believe that the proposed north/south freeway that you are referring to was the "Main St. Corridor", which would have inter-connected with the viaducts at their current eastern end.

[Klazu]

This is maybe a bit off-topic, but has it ever been considered to build an elevated freeway connector over the existing railway along the waterfront to provide a fast connection between Highway-1 and Downtown? I understand the project would be expensive, but it would provide all the suburbs with fast access to Downtown and help with congestion on the other street network. On Downtown end the freeway could have short tunnel connection to Georgia Street. This connector would also replace the need for the viaducts and free land for more housing and the long-planned park.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

You seem up on all this, and I sure hope you're right. I think trashing the viaducts would win the Idiot City Planning Award of many years. Nevertheless.......... IF the viaducts were in fact to be replaced under MRN designation, by a forcibly "higher standard/greater capacity structure," I'd rather see a tunnel. Take it from there, if you will.

You don't say how. It's going down a hill into what used to be a swamp, which is now a bunch of heavy metal contaminated backfill. Where do you put a tunnel? In the air, or in the soup?

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Klazu

This is maybe a bit off-topic, but has it ever been considered to build an elevated freeway connector over the existing railway along the waterfront to provide a fast connection between Highway-1 and Downtown? I understand the project would be expensive, but it would provide all the suburbs with fast access to Downtown and help with congestion on the other street network. On Downtown end the freeway could have short tunnel connection to Georgia Street. This connector would also replace the need for the viaducts and free land for more housing and the long-planned park.

Here is the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle:



It's a terrific example of brutal 1960's highway construction that cut off downtown Seattle from its waterfront.

After the recent Seattle earthquake, the Alaskan Way Viaduct was determined to be vulnerable to collapse during a larger earthquake, so now a new downtown tunnel is under construction so the Alaskan Way Viaduct can be demolished.

Another example is (was) the Green Monster in Boston.


I doubt you'd be able to convince anyone in East Vancouver to build something like this over the CPR tracks from Boundary Road to Stanley Park for the convenience of the suburban commuters.

However, given a choice between this "CPR Viaduct Freeway" and something else, I think we'd find that a SkyTrain built on /over /under Hastings Street all the way to SFU would be easier to sell.

[Klazu]

I think Alaskan Way Viaduct is a bad comparison, as I am sure the freeway connector wouldn't need to be two stories to fit 2+2 lanes of traffic over the railroad tracks. Also, there is no public waterfront for the entire length of the railroad, only industrial harbour area, so I don't know such a construction ruin any views or anyone's access to waterfront.

I know it would be expensive, but likely cheaper than having a tunnel all the way to Highway 1.

When it comes to public transportation along that same corridor, I would love to see a tram running on East Hastings Street. Skytrain would be too massive for this low-density area and waste of money.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

You don't say how. It's going down a hill into what used to be a swamp, which is now a bunch of heavy metal contaminated backfill. Where do you put a tunnel? In the air, or in the soup?

Alex, I was just being facetious with the tunnel and new viaduct concept. Won't ever happen. Just saying that the Georgia Viaduct can't be torn down without Translink approval, which will NEVER be granted, as it's part of Translink's MRN.

Translink would only approve the removal of the Georgia Viaduct IF a superior alternative was its replacement ie. a tunnel or new viaduct and that will never happen due to obvious financial/technical/political reasons.

This "Geoff Meggs" episode is entirely politically driven and likely has ignored advice from the CoV legal department viv-a-vis the circa 1999 incorporation of the Georgia Viaduct into the MSN.


BTW, here's a CoV memo, from July 20, 1998, regarding Translink's MRN and discusses its IMPLICATIONS for such designation:

Cost and Benefits of the MRN to Vancouver

the City would give up some control once a street is designated as a part of the MRN. These areas include:

· once selected as a major road, both the City and GVTA need to agree if it is to be deleted.

· the people-carrying capacity of a major road could not be reduced without the consent of the City and GVTA. The understanding of this is that municipalities would not be able to remove existing lanes of moving traffic.

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/980728/a11.htm

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Also, there is no public waterfront for the entire length of the railroad, only industrial harbour area, so I don't know such a construction ruin any views or anyone's access to waterfront.

That was once true of pretty much the entirety of False Creek, too. In the 60's and 70's there was a proposal to build a freeway along THAT waterfront, and proponents cited pretty much the same reasons.

Sure glad they didn't build it...

[Echowinds]

Not saying I advocate building a freeway on the waterfront, but building one would guarantee that industrial harbour area will stay industrial. The dwindling of industries in Vancouver can be a concern, and certainly not every part of Vancouver's lengthy coastline needs to be lined with condos.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I think Alaskan Way Viaduct is a bad comparison, as I am sure the freeway connector wouldn't need to be two stories to fit 2+2 lanes of traffic over the railroad tracks. Also, there is no public waterfront for the entire length of the railroad, only industrial harbour area, so I don't know such a construction ruin any views or anyone's access to waterfront.

I know it would be expensive, but likely cheaper than having a tunnel all the way to Highway 1.

When it comes to public transportation along that same corridor, I would love to see a tram running on East Hastings Street. Skytrain would be too massive for this low-density area and waste of money.

Looking at the rail yards downtown, its easy to forget that the CPR mainline is only two tracks wide along most its run along the harbourfront from Port Moody to Vancouver.

Regarding access to the waterfront, I would think a freeway on / over the CPR would have significant impact on the parks beside the CPR tracks. I think Montrose Park, Portside Park (CRAB park), New Brighton park, and Barnet Marine park -to name a few- would be hugely damaged by a waterfront freeway using the CPR space, since large swathes of land would need to be taken to widen the ROW for a freeway.

[Klazu]

I don't think such a freeway is anything realistic to happen, but I think it would be the only way of having a freeway connector to Downtown Vancouver. All other options would require a lengthy tunnel being dug and that would be very expensive.

I am all pro public transportation and would love to see less cars in Downtown, where I live. However, I do acknowledge that car is the only efficient way of commuting to many and this commuting currently overloads Vancouver streets twice a day resulting in long commuting times, lots of emissions and wasted fuel.

Freeway over CPR could increase car usage for commuting a bit and definitely increase traffic in few places of Downtown Eastside, but it would also relief congestion on East Gastings, 1st Avenue, Broadway and Kingsway, making it possible to consider things like trams. Currently all the street space on the aforementioned streets is consumed by the thousands of slow moving cars.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

You don't say how. It's going down a hill into what used to be a swamp, which is now a bunch of heavy metal contaminated backfill. Where do you put a tunnel? In the air, or in the soup?

Naïve on my part, I admit, but not living in Vancouver and not being an enginner, I imagined this might be possible. I was rather thinking of having what are now the viaducts changed into ground level (or subsurface if possible; you imply it is not) then enter the escarpment wall and continue on from there, perhaps linking into a larger tunnel sytem (but that's another thread)

Of course, if the viaducts were simply lowered to small-ground-level expressways, it would defeat the who purpose of removing them. And given that the ground beneath them is toxic filth, it doesn't seem feasible to put them in tunnels there.

There must be some other way of collecting >< distributing downtown traffic that doesn't cause massive gridlock or overused local streets, and that integrates into the major vehicle traffic flows.

But I'll leave that up to the experts. Better still, maybe re-open the roads fantasy thread, or, make such a thread for The Viaducts.

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That was once true of pretty much the entirety of False Creek, too. In the 60's and 70's there was a proposal to build a freeway along THAT waterfront, and proponents cited pretty much the same reasons.

Sure glad they didn't build it...

Or this... build a new Granville Bridge, or fill in False Creek.. http://thedependent.ca/news-and-opinion/this-day-in-vancouver/day-vancouver-11th/

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I think Alaskan Way Viaduct is a bad comparison, as I am sure the freeway connector wouldn't need to be two stories to fit 2+2 lanes of traffic over the railroad tracks. Also, there is no public waterfront for the entire length of the railroad, only industrial harbour area, so I don't know such a construction ruin any views or anyone's access to waterfront.

I know it would be expensive, but likely cheaper than having a tunnel all the way to Highway 1.

When it comes to public transportation along that same corridor, I would love to see a tram running on East Hastings Street. Skytrain would be too massive for this low-density area and waste of money.

I think everyone is thinking overboard on this.

I've mentioned this before, you don't need a waterfront freeway, but an express parkway would be perfect.

So instead of an extra wide 2 by 2 elevated roadway or a double deck monster, you build a clone of the Georgia Viaduct. Just 3 lanes wide. Unless you are actually under the existing viaducts you can barely tell it is even there.

Then all three lanes travel peak direction. Into downtown in the morning, out in the evening. The viaduct would only go as far as the Powell & Cordova merge, but I would drop most of the traffic onto Clarke Dr as the road as a lot of capacity and can easily link up with the Malkin Connector from there (and every other east/west corridor).

But the only reason you would ever build it would be if you close the Lions Gate bridge to regular traffic. It would be cheaper than a new first narrows crossing, and the extra lanes should provide the speed and capacity to be a suitable replacement. But it does depend on the existing viaducts to handle a lot of traffic.

[biketrouble]

The City's viaducts proposal is up: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/currentplanning/fcflats/

[lights blue touch paper, retreats to cover]

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

The City's viaducts proposal is up: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/currentplanning/fcflats/

[lights blue touch paper, retreats to cover]

Garbage in, garbage out. With the added bonus for Vision of a nice payoff for a developer. Ramp up Georgia will be a horror show.

Sadly if there are enough flakes in Vancouver-Fairview to send Geoff Meggs to Victoria, he'll have his hands on Translink levers to remove viaducts from the road network.

[Metro-One]

I also loved the bias slides at the start. One of the images actually focusses in on the skytrain guide ways, and those are not going anywhere!

they mention the price for up-keep, but fail to mention the price tag for the construction of new roads (and Georgia street ramp), and the viaducts removal.

Also, what aspect of their new "park plan" can not be done with the viaducts still in place? Honestly, they are going to turn that area of downtown into a pretty boring grassy field, instead of an interesting urban structure integrated with the viaducts having such features as markets, sporting facilities, etc... under them along with art and lighting effects.

Also, they fail to mention that the area under the ducts is sterile because the city has been unwilling to do anything with the land!

That sterile situation is a self-fulfilling situation.

This is a tactic often used by extreme right wing politicians (purposely make something broken via lack of action / policy) and then deem it unsuitable and demand its removal. But i see the left is picking up this trick as well, good job Vision!

[Sir Conga]

I've read most of the posts in this thread, and I've read plenty more on this topic. I still don't understand why so many people here are vehemently opposed to a change like the one being explored by the city. Just want to add my voice to the minority (on here) who looks forward to the Viaducts getting knocked down.

[Metro-One]

Because we believe in their function, we believe the city and area is better served (and can be better developed) with them in place, and we believe the finances don't add up for their removal.

Simple as that, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I myself would be OK with the Dunsmir viaduct being removed if a compromise had to be made, but I feel the removal of the Georgia viaduct is a huge mistake.

But as you said, you read many of the posts, so that means you have read our reasons.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

The City's viaducts proposal is up: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/currentplanning/fcflats/

[lights blue touch paper, retreats to cover]

So, basically, Beasley retires from CoV, city hosts ideas fair, Beasley suggests international design competition, Beasley's team enters and wins competition, and the city almost wholesale adopts their concept as a "Bold and New". Damn, I need to get this guy's business model.

The best part about this is that it highlights a lot of the poor design decisions which have just recently been made under Vision's first term. The Dunsmuir viaduct is labeled as a bad choice for a bike lane because it doesn't connect to Carrall or have any decent connections to the Seawall.

Instead of just building a separated bike lane down Pender replacing the existing painted lanes (at grade where it would be stupid cheap), they've built a temporary bike lane which will require replacement with it's own bridge to remain useful.

The other info graphic on this points out, we stand to gain all of 13% of park in the area. Of course this is not counting the block between Gore and Main which will lose 1.6 Acres of potential park space. Bringing us to a total of a 6% increase in park space.

Then they try to say that it maintaining the viaducts is fiscally irresponsible.