Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

From this Wednesdays' 24hrs.

I emailed the author. Journalists don't usually impress me, but that's a pretty big misinterpretation.

[WarrenC12]

I'm not sure I understand this obsession with the viaducts. I think it must be all Meggs. I haven't heard Robertson say anything about them in a while.

I think the city's planning should revolve around them not being replaced, not around tearing them down "early". Translink is currently revising their 2040 plan. The city should take the same approach. Assume that in 2040, the viaducts will be close to the end of their useful life. Therefore, we shouldn't be building anything permanent underneath them, fine.

The math has never added up.

[spm2013]

....

[spm2013]

...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by huenthar

wow what a blatant falsehood. The report breakdown states that more than half of that "132 million" to "maintain" the viaducts is the cost of building new ones in 40 years. The actual "maintenance" costs in the report is less than half that amount. It's like saying the cost of maintaining the current Massey Tunnel is $3 billion (includes the cost of replacing it in 40 years) in order to promote building a new bridge costing $2.8 billion immediately. Meanwhile, where are the maintenance costs for a new super-road? It will need maintenance over the next 40 years too! And what is the value of the land as-is? It might not be 100 million but it's a whole lot more than nothing!

For those on the board who generally support the removal of the viaducts: do you agree that there is a lot of fact-fudging in these reports, and that this is not the way to go about the process if in fact the viaduct removal idea has genuine merit?

Of course its falsehood, or at least statistics twisted to support what Vision wants. As to Meggs' blathering about pricelss park space, when was the last time anyone went to Andy Livingston park for its excitement and vitality? There's hardly a lack of park space in that area-maybe Vision should take the $130 million and buy up lots for areas truly underserved in park space like East Van. And Concord was supposed to build Creekside Park a long time ago, it seems they've been dragging their feet just to get this kind of payout.

[spm2013]

....

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by spm2013

Alternatives to removal weren’t explored in the report because the best options from an ideas competition for the viaducts’ future involved removal, Robertson added.

The submission with the most votes by a wide margin was to keep the viaducts as is but was ignored.

[Sir Conga]

Originally Posted by huenthar

For those on the board who generally support the removal of the viaducts: do you agree that there is a lot of fact-fudging in these reports, and that this is not the way to go about the process if in fact the viaduct removal idea has genuine merit?

Just to clarify, are you referring to fact-fudging on media or city reports?

I found the article I linked to had an obvious bias, which was one of the reasons I felt it worth sharing.

I absolutely agree the plans should only move forward on their merit.

[huenthar]

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

Just to clarify, are you referring to fact-fudging on media or city reports?

I found the article I linked to had an obvious bias, which was one of the reasons I felt it worth sharing.

I absolutely agree the plans should only move forward on their merit.

Yes I agree about the article bias, but I mostly mean the city reports - in this recent report, for example, the slanted cost comparisons where some things are mentioned for one scenario but not the other. Like noting maintenance costs for the viaduct but not for the new road network. Or lumping speculative 40+ year away viaduct removal in with its expenses (but no mention of speculative 40+ year super-road realignment expenses in case things don't work quite the way we expect in that time frame) - and in doing so indirectly admitting that the viaducts have a good 40+ years of useful life in them before replacement or removal becomes a necessity. Or how while they mention various park expenses on either side, they talk only about how wonderful the new park space with viaduct removal would be (and not how the Georgia Steps - expenses for which they add in only to the viaduct-retention side - would make a far superior pedestrian experience between downtown and False Creek than a steep-sloped sidewalk along an expanded Georgia and a massive level intersection). Or how the land post-viaduct is given a value, but the land as-is is not, even though many things could be done with it right now if we wished.

In all TransLink's rapid transit reports, for example, each option is ranked side-by-side one the same set of criteria. One might agree or disagree with TransLink's assessments on particular criteria but at least different scenarios are given the same set of characteristics to be evaluated. The city's viaduct reports, however, have a completely ad-hoc set of evaluation criteria that doesn't even stay constant between the two scenarios. Maintenance costs are important for one but not the other. Quality of park space and environments is important for one but not the other. Land is worth something in one case but not the other case.... It's fudge!

Of course the article interprets that as "$130 million for viaduct maintenance" but the inadequate comparison in the city report is massaged and present to encourage exactly that sort of interpretation...

[Sir Conga]

I have only skimmed the report, but I see what you are saying, and I agree that it is unfortunate. If the numbers make sense than they should be presented fairly without bias. I do believe more studies will be done after this recent report, so hopefully a better balance is sought with regards to actual cost for all plans considered.

Even though I am generally pro-removal, I don't understand the rush to tear down this infrastructure before it is too costly to maintain... especially using voodoo math to set the time-line. Planning for a future without the Viaducts make sense to me, but ramming these plans through without consensus is far from ideal.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

Even though I am generally pro-removal, I don't understand the rush to tear down this infrastructure before it is too costly to maintain..l.

I see the problem is that a piece of infrastructure that has a 40-50 year lifespan (before ++money is needed to refurbish) may determine street layout and land use for 100+ years.

If the neighbourhood should develop around around the viaducts, future removal will be more difficult and costly.

IMO this is a unique opportunity, working in an area that is a blank slate.

[spm2013]

....

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by spm2013

Also we don't need anymore examples of where city politicians have had grand plans for city renewal only to end up wasting cash on their pet projects.

But that's true of any large initiative. Compare vancouver's skytrain implementation to detroit's people mover, or the construction and post-earthquake removal of the embarcadero freeway in SF.

No one can predict the future with any accuracy, but i think that there is an overall net improvement possible with the removal of the viaducts.

It will cost money. you can debate about the costs, but even more simpler things that will cost less money and be highly effective for people and goods movement will likely never happen or even be backed by any party. (eg. creating a transit-only lane on broadway and removing street parking, congestion pricing in CoV, etc.)

[spm2013]

....

[dreambrother808]

The goal is 200-300 units of social housing, which is 20-30% of the total units envisioned. That doesn't sound so far-fetched to me. Nor do bike lanes and park space.

[spm2013]

....

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

The goal is 200-300 units of social housing, which is 20-30% of the total units envisioned. That doesn't sound so far-fetched to me. Nor do bike lanes and park space.

Some of the rentals they are calling "affordable" are $1500 a month or higher. This is just another windfall for developers.

I am generally pro-removal, when the time is right. The fact that they didn't do a fair comparison of the dollar amounts involved (like was said earlier, including rebuilding them under "maintenance costs" and then also not including potential land uses if they are kept intact) speaks pretty poorly. (not to mention completely excluding the high-end estimates for remediation costs, which alone has the potential to be nine digits, all at our expense).

We don't need another Yaletown, or huge, lawn-like parks. There are so many more imaginative or unconventional things they could be doing with the land and they chose the absolute safest, stalest, and most boring "vision." /endrant

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by spm2013

Heard the same BS when they were building Olympic Village. Again, tell to this me in 10 years when Concord Pacific still hasn't gotten around to building a park and the city for some reason or another builds less social housing units.

We all know that the Olympic Village social units were a victim of the 2008 financial collapse, rather than a pre-planned reversal.

That being said, there is no guarantee, but I don't see why this current plan would change, other than similar unforeseen calamities.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

Some of the rentals they are calling "affordable" are $1500 a month or higher. This is just another windfall for developers.

Agreed. That can be a slippery slope, but it doesn't mean that all plans for social and/or affordable housing end up in that range.

I am generally pro-removal, when the time is right. The fact that they didn't do a fair comparison of the dollar amounts involved (like was said earlier, including rebuilding them under "maintenance costs" and then also not including potential land uses if they are kept intact) speaks pretty poorly. (not to mention completely excluding the high-end estimates for remediation costs, which alone has the potential to be nine digits, all at our expense).

It has been pointed out that failing to remove them now and then building around them would necessitate their rebuild in 40 years. Perhaps whatever is built around them could be designed in such a way to prevent that. If you, however, believe that they should stay indefinitely, then yes, it is sensible to include their rebuild cost in future projections.

As for remediation costs, forumers are speculating, and some are perhaps choosing the high-end estimates to suit their own ideas. That being said, I am no expert on the subject and therefore can't be sure of how much it will cost exactly either. It has been said that the city is not on the hook for the remediation. The province paying for it is still "us" paying though.

[spm2013]

....