Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[theKB]

All this talk about a structure with a 40 year (estimated) service life as an old decrepit structure that needs to go (which was built in the 70's), why is the city not wanting to bulldoze the burrard street bridge by that logic especially considering it's literally falling apart. Isn't the granville street bridge also way beyond that as well? Oh and cambie will be about the same age as the viaducts in ten years, will we be having that discussion then too?

I know this is hyperbole but the fact is the logic being used to justify the removal of the viaducts is just sheer stupidity and "reconnecting" by a big green field and a "super road" does not make any sense. If we were replacing the viaducts with something better (say a tunnel that terminated close to the highway like seattle is doing with their viaduct removal) I could understand the argument but we simply aren't.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by theKB

If we were replacing the viaducts with something better (say a tunnel that terminated close to the highway like seattle is doing with their viaduct removal) I could understand the argument but we simply aren't.

We do have the Evergreen Line coming online in 2 years, and I don't see what's wrong with a grand boulevard.

The Alaska Way Tunnel is insanely expensive - 4.25 billion for 3.2 km's of tunnel. You could get 25 km's or so of high quality rapid transit for that kind of money. Luckily Vancouver has high quality transit that alleviates the need for freeways running into downtown.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

We do have the Evergreen Line coming online in 2 years, and I don't see what's wrong with a grand boulevard.

The Alaska Way Tunnel is insanely expensive - 4.25 billion for 3.2 km's of tunnel. You could get 25 km's or so of high quality rapid transit for that kind of money. Luckily Vancouver has high quality transit that alleviates the need for freeways running into downtown.

Don't you understand that an on-grade grand boulevard with traffic lights and converging traffic actually causes congestions like West Georgia Street? Imagine if Georgia street has a continuous elevated road system that goes over all the intersections without having traffic to stop, the street would not be congested like it is today. Notice how the congestion lessens once Gerogia street merges with the viaducts? Removing the existing viaducts would make the situation much much worse. With the area built up, and with the combination of events at the stadiums and casino, and the impending projects like the Telus Garden, new art gallery and post office redevelopment, I can't imagine what's in store. I don't think Robertson and gang really care about this. I don't see skytrain or bus services greatly enhanced downtown to justify the removal of the viaducts.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by theKB

All this talk about a structure with a 40 year (estimated) service life as an old decrepit structure that needs to go (which was built in the 70's), why is the city not wanting to bulldoze the burrard street bridge by that logic especially considering it's literally falling apart. Isn't the granville street bridge also way beyond that as well? Oh and cambie will be about the same age as the viaducts in ten years, will we be having that discussion then too?

I know this is hyperbole but the fact is the logic being used to justify the removal of the viaducts is just sheer stupidity and "reconnecting" by a big green field and a "super road" does not make any sense. If we were replacing the viaducts with something better (say a tunnel that terminated close to the highway like seattle is doing with their viaduct removal) I could understand the argument but we simply aren't.

If the city can have developers build something on the waters of false creek under those bridges, I'm sure we will start seeing a whole bunch of forumers coming in to argue that they are 'aging' and need replacement to save costs. It's just their words against ours. The city can claim anything to justify having the viaducts removed, just like the way they protect those nonsensical viewcones.

It's all about money and getting the easy way out to build, nothing more, nothing less.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by theKB

If we were replacing the viaducts with something better (say a tunnel that terminated close to the highway like seattle is doing with their viaduct removal) I could understand the argument but we simply aren't.

Originally Posted by Vin

Don't you understand that an on-grade grand boulevard with traffic lights and converging traffic actually causes congestions like West Georgia Street?

And the foregoing is exactly how Translink will look at the issue - Translink has the FINAL say through the lens of the region as well as regional transportation stakeholders - truckers, BC MoTI, etc.

Translink has NEVER approved the removal of either a Translink Truck Route designation or an MRN designation UNLESS the new alternative was SUPERIOR. I hate repeating myself but I still don't get why folk posting here think this is a done deal. It ain't. And it ain't gonna happen either.

[rsxstock]

i support the removal of the viaduct only because they added the bike lane. it just didn't make sense squeezing 4 lanes of traffic into 2 lanes and then into 1 lane when there are left turners in the first 2 intersections. it gets really bad in the morning and weekend when the left turners have to wait for waves of pedestrians

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

Don't you understand that an on-grade grand boulevard with traffic lights and converging traffic actually causes congestions like West Georgia Street?

Funneling traffic through a high capacity stretch of viaduct which suddenly transforms into a surface street causes congestion too. You get a 1 km expressway to bumper to bumper traffic. All the viaduct does is concentrate more volume on city streets. Traffic coming off the new Pacific Blvd will be metered more effectively onto Prior St. and Main St. Similar to some freeway on-ramps with alternating signals so that you don't get a large volume of cars trying to merge onto the freeway at the same time.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by theKB

All this talk about a structure with a 40 year (estimated) service life as an old decrepit structure that needs to go (which was built in the 70's), why is the city not wanting to bulldoze the burrard street bridge by that logic especially considering it's literally falling apart.

I don't think anyone who want to tear down the viaducts is making that argument, so IMHO your rant is missing the point.

I believe that proponents for removal would argue that:

- the reasons that the viaducts were originally built (to span the old rail yards and to act as the first step of a freeway system) have disappeared and so there is no longer a requirement for the road to be elevated. If an earthquake destroyed the viaducts tomorrow there probably wouldn't be any significant opposition to replacing them with surface routes.

- the area is about to be redeveloped. Given that the viaducts are unlikely to be replaced when they do eventually reach end of life, it makes sense to plan any development for what the area will look like in the future when they are gone.

If you want to argue against their removal, those are the points you should address - not the wild goose chase about the semantics of the word "aging" that's consumed the last several posts.

[spm2013]

....

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

Don't you understand that an on-grade grand boulevard with traffic lights and converging traffic actually causes congestions like West Georgia Street? Imagine if Georgia street has a continuous elevated road system that goes over all the intersections without having traffic to stop, the street would not be congested like it is today. Notice how the congestion lessens once Gerogia street merges with the viaducts? Removing the existing viaducts would make the situation much much worse. With the area built up, and with the combination of events at the stadiums and casino, and the impending projects like the Telus Garden, new art gallery and post office redevelopment, I can't imagine what's in store. I don't think Robertson and gang really care about this. I don't see skytrain or bus services greatly enhanced downtown to justify the removal of the viaducts.

Thank you. I think you summed it up quite precisely.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

Funneling traffic through a high capacity stretch of viaduct which suddenly transforms into a surface street causes congestion too. You get a 1 km expressway to bumper to bumper traffic. All the viaduct does is concentrate more volume on city streets. Traffic coming off the new Pacific Blvd will be metered more effectively onto Prior St. and Main St. Similar to some freeway on-ramps with alternating signals so that you don't get a large volume of cars trying to merge onto the freeway at the same time.

You can't discount the fact that the viaduct disperses Georgia street traffic out of downtown very well. And as far as I know, traffic brought into downtown does not cause massive traffic congestions on Dunsmiur, as there are enough dispersion routes via other streets. Also it takes a lot faster to travel from Prior/Main to the downtown core rather than having to go through additional intersections on north False Creek. So why destroy something that works and implement something that is not so sound?

How can traffic from Pacific Boulevard be metered more effectively onto Prior when it has to go through quite a few intersections and increase in pedestrians in that area? You also fail to mention what might happen when Georgia street and stadium event/casino traffic is channeled onto the boulevard. How would that help the neighbourhood? Freeway style signalling won't work because of the additional traffic from new projects in the neighbourhood. There would be ample side traffic channelling onto Pacific Boulevard and no matter how you see it, traffic has to be stopped intermittently, thus causing traffic jams. I'm not even mentioning the increase in foot traffic with more people trying to cross the roads.

[officedweller]

The Dunsmuir Viaduct acts as an elevated holding area for cars coming into the downtown core and prevents those cars from backing up at-grade in an increasingly residential area.

Exitting downtown, the cars do get dispersed a bit - some exit at Main St. and others exit to Prior St. - but ultimately they bunch up when they hit the first traffic light.
With the proposed ramp down to Pacific Blvd., I think you'll see a lot of backed-up traffic on that ramp and at each light on the superroad.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The Dunsmuir Viaduct acts as an elevated holding area for cars coming into the downtown core and prevents those cars from backing up at-grade in an increasingly residential area.

Exitting downtown, the cars do get dispersed a bit - some exit at Main St. and others exit to Prior St. - but ultimately they bunch up when they hit the first traffic light.
With the proposed ramp down to Pacific Blvd., I think you'll see a lot of backed-up traffic on that ramp and at each light on the superroad.

I think the back up will not only be on the proposed ramp, but all the way along West Georgia street to Stanley park. The only reason the section east of Granville is relatively clear is due to rapid viaduct dispersal.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

I think the back up will not only be on the proposed ramp, but all the way along West Georgia street to Stanley park. The only reason the section east of Granville is relatively clear is due to rapid viaduct dispersal.

Speaking from experience driving during the afternoon rush, Georgia street crawls along. You even mentioned that before in one of your previous posts, but I think you edited it out.

I've done this route many times. Georgia street crawls along, then a short 1 km burst over the viaduct, then crawling along Main St. towards Mt. Pleasant.

If there's more volume along a new Pacific, there will be less volume along Main, and along Prior.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by spm2013

Not sure if this commentary was previously discussed..


http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion...ncrete-scar-214712021.html?device=mobile

And the Vancouver Courier on the reason for the no decision.


http://www.vancourier.com/opinion/vancou...the-making-1.383264#sthash.oFO8pZ7A.dpuf

In said negotiations do they try to scare Concord Pacific with leaving the viaducts to receive more concessions?

And is the "agency" remark intended for PavCo and Translink?

LOL, gotta love the article where the quote says the city says will not be held ransom by any developer. They will however drop their kickers and bend over if the developer waves some cash around.

[Tetsuo]

Every viaducts article I've read is littered with newspeak.

It seems whenever people talk about traffic and road infrastructure they only focus on the car/personal vehicle aspect of it, never on the trucks and movement of goods.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

Speaking from experience driving during the afternoon rush, Georgia street crawls along. You even mentioned that before in one of your previous posts, but I think you edited it out.

I've done this route many times. Georgia street crawls along, then a short 1 km burst over the viaduct, then crawling along Main St. towards Mt. Pleasant.

If there's more volume along a new Pacific, there will be less volume along Main, and along Prior.

I don't think I edited anything, but would you rather:

have traffic crawl along from Stanley Park to Granville Street, and then free flow to Prior,

or

Have traffic crawl along from Stanley Park all the way to Prior?

Come on, don't be shy. Take your pick.

[spm2013]

....

[spm2013]

....

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

It seems whenever people talk about traffic and road infrastructure they only focus on the car/personal vehicle aspect of it, never on the trucks and movement of goods.

It always annoys me when people try to justify road expansion using "goods movement" arguments. "Goods movement" is a small percentage of traffic and it's not what's responsible for congestion. We could just as easily expedite goods movement by imposing restrictions or tolls of some sort on single occupancy vehicles, but nobody ever seems to promote that solution.