Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

That's not the overall capacity choke. The capacity choke currently is the intersection of Beatty and Dunsmuir. When they first built the viaducts there was 4 through lanes, 2 right turn lanes, and no left turn lanes due to Beatty being one way. Now it's one de-facto left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane.

Beatty didn't become a one-way street until.. mid 80s?


http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/uploa...3-1dda-45e4-b6b7-514db6de7c58-A73949.jpg


http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/uploa...c-219f-410a-b9eb-1218fbf4cbc5-A42776.jpg

[Edit] November 24 1985... another clipping added to the archives.


scan0019 by Splashcat, on Flickr

[Tfreder]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The Georgia viaduct has always done a terrific job of moving traffic out of downtown. I have never felt a "hurry up and wait" scenario existed there. Honestly, all they are going to do is create a traffic jam on Georgia where one does not exist today, retarded to say the least, and their traffic analysis methodologies is just as flawed and biased as the traffic study being discredited a few posts above.

Honestly, does anyone here believe that the Evergreen line is going to reduce traffic enough to downtown to warrant the removal of 5 lanes??? Especially since the goal of the viaducts should be to keep industrial / commercial traffic off the surface streets in the area.

Again, it urks me how much time / energy / attention this entire debacle has sucked out of our local politics, so many other important issues have been pushed aside for this distraction campaign. Disgusts me.

And I can tell you this, the contractor community who builds all of downtown's precious luxury condos is not happy at all with these developments. They see it as a spit in the face by Vision in favour of more luxury condos... Which it is, since all these units were planned to be built anyway with the viaducts in place, creating a really cool, more affordable area, but instead, now we have much higher price condos to be built and less infrastructure to keep the average person moving! Thanks Vision! Go fuck youself!

Sorry, I know swearing makes me look childish and immature, but i am so tired of Vision Vancouver and how out of touch they are with what really keeps our region's economy healthy (such as wanting to ban oil tankers in the Burrard inlet despite the fact that thousands in Metro Vancouver are employed at oil and gas terminals and a refinery that have been using tankers in the Burrard inlet for decades). Honestly, they seem to be wanting to cut off their nose to spite their face.

I love that they're using that line to justify tearing down the viaducts. I'm sure that all of the driving commuters from Richmond, South Delta, White Rock, Surrey, Langley, Abbotsford, Burnaby, Maple Ridge, North Van, and West Van are all going to start taking the Evergreen line, thereby reducing all of the traffic in Downtown.

[Pinion]

Several of those suburbs don't use the viaducts, but taking out the viaducts will make my route (through Powell/Gastown) more busy.

[p78hub]

I think we're also forgetting that there is a City of Vancouver east of Main Street. You know, all the way east to Boundary and south to Killarney. A good chunk of Vancouver residents do use the Viaducts as they provide an alternative route to Hastings (30km/h speed limit) or Broadway/12th to Cambie (congested) getting downtown. Heck, I live on the west side and I use the viaducts if I need to get downtown from the east side, although I realize I'm probably in the minority there..

[hollywoodnorth]

got this email from the city 10 days ago.

just saw it now.


Hello Viaducts and Eastern Core List Serve Members,

Last July, City of Vancouver staff provided an update to Mayor and Council on the viaducts study. Please follow the link to the Council presentation. The proposed concept plan for the land surrounding the Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaducts includes the following highlights:

Replacing the viaduct structures with a Georgia Street connection which ramps down from Beatty to connect at-grade to Pacific Boulevard;
Replacing Pacific Boulevard with a new two-way vehicle street connecting the Georgia Street ramp to Prior/Venables, or potentially Malkin Avenue in the future;
An increase of parks and open space in the study area by 3 acres; and
New opportunities for development on the City owned blocks between Quebec and Gore Ave.

At the open house public consultation last June, 69% of respondents supported or strongly supported the concept of removing the viaducts. Although the public response was positive, a number of concerns were raised by neighbourhoods in close proximity to the viaducts. At the July update, the Mayor directed staff to continue to evolve the concept plan and address the following key issues:

Making immediate traffic improvements to Prior Street, including re-instating parking and exploring speed bumps and other calming measures, to make the street safer for local residents;
Pursuing the Malkin connector to divert traffic, including heavy industrial, off residential streets of Strathcona and Grandview Woodlands and onto designated routes;
A timeline for deliverables for local residents, including expanding park space and affordable housing, as well as options for phased or partial removal of the viaducts, as opposed to one single removal;
Incorporating any removal of the viaducts with the City’s Economic Action Strategy goals of increasing job density, particularly in the clean technology and digital media industries, in False Creek flats and along Great Northern Way; and
Ensuring that the flow of commercial goods is a priority and that the needs of the business community are considered, as outlined by the Vancouver Board of Trade.

The staff team is advancing work on these key issues. The intention is to address these work items and bring the Viaducts concept plan to Council for a decision on ‘approval in principle’ early in the new year.

We will continue to inform you of upcoming public consultation events through this listserve. Thanks for your continued interest in the Viaducts and Eastern Core Strategy.

The Viaducts and Eastern Core Planning Team.

[moosejaw]

I think a better idea would be to leave the viaducts in place and route them to Malkin Ave instead of Prior St.
Prob somewhere in this thread pages back this idea was brought up

But I imagine the hippies would be up in arms over any new road construction in this town.

[jlousa]

I was thinking about it the other day and the city could probably accomplish it's greener city goals by leaving the viaducts in place and getting rid of Expo Blvd instead. It would allow Andy Livingston park to expand southward, It would provide a buffer from the future International Village School. It would allow Aquillini an easier time to built tower #4 and help Concord build on it's property. It would remove the dangerous crossing from Stadium station to Rogers arena negating the need for a new overpass. That money could be redirected to another community goal. Think converting Pacific into a two way while reducing capacity would be more managable then the proposed superroad. The city could even keep the stretch of Expo Blvd under the BC Place plaza and charge the event trucks to park there. Seems win-win but obviously I must be overlooking something.

[officedweller]

You'd need to maintain Expo Blvd west of Abbott for the Spectum development (Costco). Even the viaduct removal plan keeps that section open (via an intersection with the super road).

[TransitFreak]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I was thinking about it the other day and the city could probably accomplish it's greener city goals by leaving the viaducts in place and getting rid of Expo Blvd instead. It would allow Andy Livingston park to expand southward, It would provide a buffer from the future International Village School. It would allow Aquillini an easier time to built tower #4 and help Concord build on it's property. It would remove the dangerous crossing from Stadium station to Rogers arena negating the need for a new overpass. That money could be redirected to another community goal. Think converting Pacific into a two way while reducing capacity would be more managable then the proposed superroad. The city could even keep the stretch of Expo Blvd under the BC Place plaza and charge the event trucks to park there. Seems win-win but obviously I must be overlooking something.

Yes, the thing you're overlooking is the hell-bent resolution of eradicating any remnants to the old 'highway' concept into Vancouver. In all seriousness though, your thoughts does makes sense of accomplishing goals within the confines of existing structures, and value engineering to use that term loosely. To state the obvious, a lot of the recent road and signal 'improvements' were designed or appear to have been designed to be less effective in having traffic flow freely throughout the CBD, and in certain areas in Vancouver.

[wrenegade]

Couple things regarding Acquilini's tower no. 4 I heard from a planner. Essentially the city told them it is not a developable site. Full stop. Secondly, there will apparently be an addition built for the Stadium Skytrain station on that site providing elevator access to the platform and eliminating the need for the gated crossing across Expo. I believe this station addition would be built along with the removal of the viaducts and road re-routing.

[jlousa]

I thought about Costco most of the parking movements are from Beatty, so the suffering would be minor. Access via Grittiths Way could also be maintained. I agree it's an excerise in futility. My understanding is the current council isn't interested in seeing the 4th tower built, but that a previous one was, and potentially a future one might as well.

[officedweller]

Even though there's a link to Beatty, there's a lot of access to Costco via the driveway immediately adjacent to Stadium Station - that's the main access to their auto centre.
There also seems to be a lot of drop-off and loading at the curb for some reason too.

[jsbertram]

Meggs lost NDP nomination last night, so he'll be at city hall until the next city election in two years. Unless he parachutes into another local provincial riding & gets that nomination & wins the election in the spring.

Now he has lots of time to continue with his pet project to demolish the viaducts.

[tybuilding]

Outsider's View Of Proposed Vancouver Viaduct Demolition

If the city gets serious and builds a tunnel under False Creek that joins Terminal Avenue at the other end?

Instead of diverting traffic to an upgraded Pacific Boulevard, what if the city really gets serious and builds a tunnel that takes traffic under False Creek and joins Terminal Avenue at the other end? Wouldn't that benefit commuters and the communities along Prior St by providing an alternative route to the city from Highway 1? Wouldn't that also eliminate the need to build the Malkin Connector?

[trofirhen]

A tunnel is what I'd like. Unfortunately, in Vancouver, tunnels are seen as prohibitively expensive (and in truth, they can be), or else, "evil" and "politically incorrect" in some strange way I don't understand. But IMO a tunnel is by far the best solution: it would open up green space ... AND ... keep the traffic flowing smoothly.

[jlousa]

The problem is the 40ft cliff that needs to be climbed, how is increasing it by another 20 or so ft going to solve anything? We'd end up with an unreasonably steep incline, or the tunnel coming out somewere around the post office, neither of which sound like a solution to me.

[officedweller]

Agreed - plus the current set-up (and Malkin Connector) serve to distribute traffic via Clarke Drive north to Hastings/Commissioner and south to Terminal/First Ave. Funnelling all traffic into Terminal Ave. would not be good - esp. for residents of First Ave.

[deasine]

I see it as an incredibly expensive way to funnel traffic onto Clark and seems to defeat the purpose (or the intent) of removing the viaducts in the first place.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The problem is the 40ft cliff that needs to be climbed, how is increasing it by another 20 or so ft going to solve anything? We'd end up with an unreasonably steep incline, or the tunnel coming out somewere around the post office, neither of which sound like a solution to me.

Agreed. But ... what about the surface part of the new connector leading to English Bay, and the tunnel part surfacing further west, as you point out, for traffic bound for the Western part of the downtown peninsula, or even to link up for the North Shore? Much of this traffic is coming from Highway 1 as well as other parts of the COV, so the destinations would vary. $$$ permitting (ha) this could be developed into an efficient, very-low-profile c/d system, could it not? Just an idea.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Outsider's View Of Proposed Vancouver Viaduct Demolition

If the city gets serious and builds a tunnel under False Creek that joins Terminal Avenue at the other end?

Instead of diverting traffic to an upgraded Pacific Boulevard, what if the city really gets serious and builds a tunnel that takes traffic under False Creek and joins Terminal Avenue at the other end? Wouldn't that benefit commuters and the communities along Prior St by providing an alternative route to the city from Highway 1? Wouldn't that also eliminate the need to build the Malkin Connector?

What if unicorns and pixies alighted on my keyboard? Both are as likely.