Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[GMasterAres]

Agree 100% with you WarrenC12. People that use "low voter turnout" as an excuse to argue the elected government shouldn't make decisions seem to assume everyone that didn't show up or cast a vote would have voted against electing the government.

They go "Oh look 35% of people voted, and Vision got 55% of the vote so they really only got 19% of people voting for them!" as if they had 81% against them.

Truth is, if you don't vote you get no say in my books. People want to complain about the decisions of elected officials... GO 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 WELL VOTE... or shut up.

Vision has been elected into office in Vancouver and they can clearly govern the way they feel the electorate wants them to govern. If you want a referendum, ralley the troops and petition city hall. If they don't listen to you, get out and vote against them next election.

Don't use voter turnout as an excuse. Statistics have shown in other jurisdictions that when voter turn out goes up, the final results don't actually change much and in almost every instance, the same elected officials would get into office.

It's just a myth that those against elected officials drum up as an excuse. I happen to think Vision is whacko and Greggor has done more bad than good for the City of Vancouver, but he was elected into office TWICE so far, so much like George W Bush, the majority seem to think he is doing fine and/or agree with his decisions.

Back onto topic....

I still think taking down the viaducts it silly.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

"You're stupid"

That's the level of discussion around here.

As for your points, they are all opinions. You feel that the change in traffic flows will absolutely, without doubt create these effects, and yet there is no actual proof. It is a potential vision.

You also assume that the city simply foots a $100 million dollar bill for this project. Do the developers then get the land for free? Will there be no other source of funding? Once again this is all conjecture presented as incontrovertible fact.

I don't even really care to a strong degree if they get torn down so CHILL OUT.

You are right about the fact that all of the arguments have been presented on either side. People are therefore free to draw whatever conclusions they will. In the meantime, I will happily move on to more productive exchanges of ideas.

No, that's the level you are trying to pin on those who disagree with you.

It would be interesting for posters to disclose if they even pay taxes directly to the city. As someone who pays them a sizeable chunk of my income every year, I'd prefer it was not squandered on fixing something that isn't broken.

If this was Toronto or Calagary where the was a sizeable budget surplus I'd entertain it, but Vancouver is not in the same enviable financial situation.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by spm2013

They're promoting the ground level Skytrain guideway in the viaduct removal plans as a "photo opportunity" venue for tourists to get photographed beside a moving Skytrain car. Say Cheese.

And for the more adventurous, you can get your picture snapped in front of the pumping station too!

If your timing is right, the SkyTrain will be crawling past you in the background just as the camera clicks.

Woo Hoo!
a unique memento of your trip to Vancouver.

I'll say 'cheezie'

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by spm2013

You could also try just closing the viaducts for 6 months and see what the impact on the traffic network would be. Sure you wouldn't have a replacement road in place but it would be interesting to see how traffic would re-route around the closure.

They were closed for several months before, during and after the Olympics.

As far as I know, nobody bothered to study the changes in traffic flow in and around downtown while the Viaducts were restricted to Official Olympic Traffic.

or perhaps nobody wanted to know.

However, the 'results' were noted by the local media who interviewed P!ssed-Off drivers on Main St and Prior St who had lost their usual route into downtown.

[jlousa]

The viaducts weren't closed for month(s) during the Olympics but they did measure traffic on other routes during the clousure. The results though were less then conclusive as if people recall the city pressed people to take holidays during the games and not to commute to work. Transit levels and hours were also increased so that traffic patterns would be nearly impossible to relate to normal world situations.

As much as I am pro viaduct...

*Mod hat on*

Those speakingly against the viaducts deserve to be heard and treated with respect, if you don't agree with them argue against their points not against them as a perspn. There is no need to be calling anyone from either camp stupid or any other names and doing so will lead to disciplinary action.

[Sir Conga]

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who received an email this morning.

An Administrative Report dated June 18, 2013 will be presented to Council on Tuesday, June 25, 2013. The presentation will be broadcast on the City’s website at http://vancouver.ca/councilvideo.

Council will hear speakers on this matter at the Standing Committee on Planning, Transportation and Environment at its meeting on Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 9:30 am at the Council Chamber, Third Floor, City Hall.

The agenda for the meeting can be viewed here and the relevant report here (warning large PDF).

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

The agenda for the meeting can be viewed here and the relevant report here (warning large PDF).

From a personal perspective, in reviewing the report, I was happy to see that the timeline for the destruction of the viaducts is such that I will have sold my place in Yaletown and moved away prior to the actual damage being done.

[spm2013]

....

[jlousa]

Yes the long awaited viaduct study is out. A few items that I found of interest.

Business and residents in Gastown have expressed concern with traffic volumes and speeds along Water Street. The viaducts removal plan is expected to have no impact along this corridor.

vehicle volumes will not increase in Chinatown, while the removal of the viaducts will improve the north-south connectivity between Chinatown and the seawall/NEFC

PavCo – In 2012 PavCo identified a number of concerns with the viaducts project, including loading access and clearance, ability for trucks and patrons to access the stadium, congestion and the impact on the future viability of a tower on the east side of the stadium. Staff have received a letter from PavCo dated June 17, 2013 that notes “there appears to be ways to address operational impacts but design, regulatory and funding solutions need to be resolved. As such the comments in this letter do not represent PavCo agreement to the removal of the eastbound Georgia Viaduct and extension of Georgia Street across the PavCo lands.”

Concord Pacific – The proposed street network and removal of the viaducts has significant positive impacts to Concord’s lands, however as discussed in the NEFC Planning and Viaducts Integration section of this report, a number of complex and inter-related issues require resolution including land exchange and development parcels resulting from new roads, soils contamination, land use and density and park area, program and timing.

The Province of BC (Andy Livingstone Park) – The City currently has a 999 year lease with the Province for use of Andy Livingstone Park for park purposes. A restrictive covenant is registered against the park limiting use for park purposes. A portion of the southern edge of the park is needed for the replacement street network (new Pacific Boulevard), which is not a permitted use under the covenant. A court application would be required to modify the covenant to permit the road to encroach onto the park. Closing Carrall Street to vehicles and converting it to park could result in a net increase in park area overall, which may be key to resolving the road encroachment issue

So Chinatown is in favour becasue they beleive it will somehow improve North-South movement, but then we are looking at closing Carrall St....



Money$$$$$$

1) Retaining the viaducts is projected to cost approximately $35-$40 million over the next 5-15 years and $60-$80 million in about 40 years (overall total $95 – $120 million):
a. Over the next 5 to 15 years:
• approximately $10 million to rehabilitate the viaducts,
• approximately $15 million to construct the “Georgia Steps” - a new pedestrian-bicycle ramp to connect the downtown (Georgia and Beatty) to False Creek (Pacific Boulevard), and
• $10-$15 million to construct the planned new waterfront park (Creekside Park Extension).
b. In about 40 years:
• $60-$80 million to replace the viaducts.

2) Removing the viaducts and providing a new street and open space network is estimated to cost approximately $115-$132 million over the next 5-10 years, as follows:
• $50-$55 million to remove the viaducts and construct the new Georgia Street and pedestrian-bike connections,
• $30-$35 million to modify existing streets and utilities,
• $30-$35 million to modify existing parks and construct new parks (including Creekside Park Extension), and
• $3-$7 million for soil remediation for City-owned blocks between Quebec and Gore Avenue.
The overall value of 10 acres of land freed up for use through the removal of the viaducts is estimated at $100-$110M (assuming a gross floor space ratio of 3.5). The viaducts and associated land are City-owned assets, and as part of the overall plan would be repurposed for use as public open space, affordable housing or other public use. In addition, some of the land can be sold for residential/commercial development.

So we include the value of selling the land if the viaducts come down, but don't include the value of the land (which can still be sold or developed) if the viaducts stay up, seems interesting. I also like they include the cost of rebuilding the viaducts in 40yrs but not of the maintance required on the new road over the 40yr period.

I'll go over it in more detail as time permits. On a plus is seems like there will be an election before we see any demo work.

[spm2013]

....

[theKB]

Originally Posted by IanS

From a personal perspective, in reviewing the report, I was happy to see that the timeline for the destruction of the viaducts is such that I will have sold my place in Yaletown and moved away prior to the actual damage being done.

It will also give the chance a few times over to oust vision from power and kill the plan entirely.

[Jebby]

Wow what a bullsh*t report...

[Metro-One]

Honestly, how can anyone deny the fact that this report, along with this entire process has been incredibly biased towards their removal.

I noticed this on the bridge report recently released which stated that the viaducts are in worse structural shape than the Burrard Street Bridge and 1st Ave Viaduct...like honestly, especially since only a few years ago Translink rated them in good condition for almost every category.

For me, this is now leaning toward outright corruption.

I remember personally talking with Meggs at one of the open houses long ago, and in front of several other attendees I blasted everyone of his inaccurate reasons for tearing them down, finally, frustrated, he simply sharply said to me "but they are ugly!, look at them!"

I got him to spout his true reasons for their removal, not very convincing... Some of the most useful infrastructure is "ugly" (Skytrain, ports, factories, airports, water treatment plants, etc...) so that is never a valid reason. And honestly, I am one of those who actually like having layered infrastructure in a city, helps create a urban vibe IMO (hence I love skytrain).

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who received an email this morning.

An Administrative Report dated June 18, 2013 will be presented to Council on Tuesday, June 25, 2013. The presentation will be broadcast on the City’s website at http://vancouver.ca/councilvideo.

Council will hear speakers on this matter at the Standing Committee on Planning, Transportation and Environment at its meeting on Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 9:30 am at the Council Chamber, Third Floor, City Hall.

The agenda for the meeting can be viewed here and the relevant report here (warning large PDF).

oh wow what a surprise .... NO MENTION OF THE SOIL REMEDIATION COSTS AND WHO WILL FOOT THAT HUGE BILL!

good work Meggs.

[spm2013]

....

[Metro-One]

That is the most infuriating aspect of this debate is it was decided years ago before the first mention was made.

I remeber at first everyone was telling me to calm down because they were looking atseverla options, retaining one but not the other, terminating them at main, or removing them in 20 to 30 years. Well guess what, those were all dog and pony options, they chose to remove both of them completely immediately!!

Then there was how to replace / use them contest, many great ideas came out, some retaining them others only retaining a little, with amazing urban realm atmospheres, but guess what, the most plain option one by the entry who was already pre-chosen!!

This is the joke, and this is why it is starting to feel very corrupt for me.

[idunno]

While maybe you can doubt some of the financial side of things, the perceived efficiency/traffic problems are the source of most of the opposition to this project.

Are you guys really ignoring the traffic engineering study (later in the report) where it is repeatedly shown that a) The new Pacific Blvd will have the capacity for future traffic demand and b) that neighbouring streets will not have to handle much, if any new vehicles?

[spm2013]

....

[spm2013]

....

[jlousa]

Yes I love how the city claims traffic is falling in some reports but in others it shows it's rising. Here is another set of numbers from the city's own report on active transportation. They were supposed to show how percentage wise bikes and pedestrian travel is up, and it certainly is, and while car travel is certainly down percentage wise... it is also clearly increasing in total numbers. So I guess if we are being told that the new Pacific Blvd is able to carry the traffic of the current Georgia viaduct/Dunsmuir viaduct/Expo Blvd and Pacific Blvd all wrapped into one. That can certainly be the case, I for one don't envy having to cross that street on a regular basis though.



Source Via Pricetags (not exactly a car friendly site)
http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/vancouver-driving-drops-again/