Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

It's in the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act, which is the legislation that governs TransLink. TransLink has the final say on the removal of any capacity to the Major Road Network:

Since removal of the viaducts definitely counts as a reduction of capacity of part of the major road network, the City of Vancouver needs to have the TransLink board pass a bylaw that removes the viaducts from the major road network.

Oh, and looking at the major road network map, the Dunsmuir Viaduct isn't in the MRN, and only part of the Georgia Viaduct is (the part between Beatty and the offramp leading down to Main Street).

Correct. Technically only the Georgia St. viaduct is part of the MRN right up to Main St. But practically ya can't remove one without the other.

I have stated the following ad nauseam on here over the years but will repeat again:

1. Back circa 1999, the Van City engineering dept. advised council the consequences of placing any road within the MRN. Basically, once you're in you'll never be able to get out. Posted the 1999 City Memo on here ages ago;

2. Translink views an MRN-designated road as a "regional" road in terms of regional connectivity, trucking, etc.

3. The City of Surrey has previously requested removal of portion of MRN/Truck Route to no avail. Same with the City of New Westminster. To no avail. I am sure other munis have as well. For same reasons as viaducts in Van City. Translink precedents have already been set.

And Translink always discusses these issues with regional stakeholders:

1. BC MoTI (as Georgia Viaduct connects to Stanley Park Causeway/Lions Gate Bridge);

2. BC Trucking Association as Georgia viaduct is key trucking connector to Georgia St/Lions Gate Bridge. In fact, when the Georgia viaduct was temporarily shutdown this past April, the BC Trucking Association issued a release to truckers of a special downtown detour that required the VPD at an intersection to assist truckers making the corner.

http://www.bctrucking.com/2015/03/26/georgia-viaduct-temporary-closure-april-5-16-2015

3. BC Gateway Council - as part of movement of goods in region;

4. Port of Vancouver - ancillary requirements;

As with past requests for MRN removal all of the foregoing bodies opposed same. No doubt they would have similar response to Van City's request.

Once again. Have never heard a peep from Translink on this issue. And they are the final decision makers.

Frankly, this whole "viaduct removal" meme is all about naught IMHO.

PS. I noticed that this thread was started back in 2009 - almost 6 years ago. The thread dies and then every once in a while, for unknown reason, it revives again. Yet nothing has ever changed.


EDITED TO ADD:

Both the Georgia viaduct AND the Dunsmuir viaduct are also part of the City of Vancouver's "Truck Route Network".

Provincial legislation also requires TransLink approval for any changes that would prohibit truck movement (this applies to all municipal roads, not just the MRN). And, ergo, that includes BOTH viaducts. Another fly in the ointment right there - As Translink has also previously refused other Metro Van muni requests removing the Truck Route Network designation on their own truck route networks.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

Looking at it the other way if the viaducts didn't currently exist would we build them now?

They're simply not terribly useful when you consider the amount of space they take up.

I have a really tough time coming up with a good reason why the viaducts should continue to exist. Commuting ostensibly gets worse without them, but the Globe article stated it'd increase commutes by 1-3 minutes, which is essentially irrelevant. It's frankly absurd to do away with several blocks of great residential and commercial space on Main street just for an ever so slightly better commute for some people.

We know that automobile traffic is declining. It's not appropriate to continue to maintain automobile oriented infrastructure.

It seems like you answered your own question.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

whats 3 minutes a trip? not much. but there and back;
- 6 minutes a day
- 30 minutes a week
- 2 hours a month
- 20 hours in 10 months
- 26 hours in 52 weeks.

so in 52 weeks, 1 year, that is more then 1 whole day added to time spent in a car/traffic. well isn't that just pleasant.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

whats 3 minutes a trip? not much. but there and back;
- 6 minutes a day
- 30 minutes a week
- 2 hours a month
- 20 hours in 10 months
- 26 hours in 52 weeks.

so in 52 weeks, 1 year, that is more then 1 whole day added to time spent in a car/traffic. well isn't that just pleasant.

Good point. I just love how they try to whitewash it with "only three minutes" drivel since as you pointed out, those three minutes has a much larger impact when you look at the situation with a little more of a broad lens. Not to mention, they usually only calculate the extra time that would be spent on the direct portion of the route that is being affected, not the ripple effect it can cause traffic even further down someone's route home. So it can actually be a lot worse than just 3 minutes.

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

It seems like you answered your own question.

Well in the very next line I state how little weight I give to people's commutes.

It's a completely lopsided contest in my opinion.

By removing the viaducts, among other benefits we will free up two big blocks on either side of Main street for development, which will be able to house hundreds of people and create new spaces for retail and businesses. That massively outweighs the small commuting increases.

[mukmuk64]

I'm not sure if the MRN thing is a deal breaker. Ostensibly the city could add the new reconfigured ground level road to the MRN and then there wouldn't be much of a reduction in capacity in the MRN.

I bike across the Dunsmuir Viaduct often and I do agree with City staff when they say that Quebec is overbuilt and under used. On morning commutes to the city the Viaduct is bumper to bumper, slowly moving along, whereas Quebec below is often completely empty. We have two streets here that are completely unbalanced, and so I can see how City Engineers think they could make things more efficient by simply having one.

[officedweller]

Reminder of what's planned:

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

the presentation boards have now been posted >>

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/currentplanning/fcflats/pdf/jun2012ViaductOpenHouseBoards.pdf

I will point out the 2 key ones that were not online till now and both show how much of a fuck up this whole thing will be >>

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=174625&page=115

Originally Posted by officedweller

This is from the 800 Griffiths Way CD-1 Rezoning report to be approved by City Council this week - The second plan shows the Georgia intersection at Pacific. Traffic on the grand Pacific Blvd funnelled up to Georgia Street, but a last minute connection to Expo Bld is provided via Griffiths Way. And it looks like there's a bike lane on that 5% grade.

Anyone else think that the new Georgia Street extension will take up land that was supposed to be used for the Georgia Steps?

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20120612/documents/p5.pdf


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=174625&page=116

The Georgia Street Ramp would replace or severely narrow the proposed Georgia Steps.

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

http://www.franclarchitecture.com/work/rogers-arena-site-development


...

Malkin Connector:

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Updating one of my previous posts:

I've done a quick map of the West and East Malkin connectors:


By jsbertram at 2010-06-20

The Red line shows a new extension of the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts that stays elevated east of Main St but curves south before reaching Gore, staying elevated over Prior St. Once these viaduct extensions are south of Prior St. the roadway drops to ground level to connect with the western portion of Malkin Ave.

The Blue line is the long-discussed Malkin Connector that joins the eastern portion of Malkin Ave to Clark Dr. The primary purpose of this new connector is to let commercial traffic access the industrial areas along Malkin Ave, Raymur Ave and Glen Dr without being interrupted by the railway traffic that is moving between the waterfront rail yards and the False Creek rail yards.

With the new West Malkin Connector and East Malkin Connector in place, Prior St east of Main St would no longer need to be be a truck route - trucks would be required to to use Malkin (and the new Malkin connectors) to access Downtown and the industrial areas along Malkin. Prior St would become more of a residential street again and wouldn't have a direct connection to the viaducts, but Strathcona-ites could still get to / from downtown using the Jackson Ave / Atlantic St / West Malkin Connector intersection.

This change gives commercial traffic an easier route to downtown that passes through already-industrial areas along Malkin Ave, while at the same time it lets Strathcona along Prior become a residential area again. The commercial traffic is already using Clark Dr, so this gives that traffic an easier route to and from the downtown area via Clark Dr.

Venables east of Raymur Ave would likely stay as a truck route because of the industrial needs along it, but it won't be possible to use Venables via Prior to get downtown.

Anyone needing to use Expo or Pacific for False Creek will still use Terminal and Quebec for their routes.

And the historical uses around a viaduct!?!:

Originally Posted by officedweller

BTW - I was talking with a Ministry of Environment official last week, and he said that when Concord Pacific's "revised" proposal for a string of midrises along Pacific Blvd was proposed, he said that they, in effect, screamed... "noooooooo".

Apparently Parcel 6C/9 is the site of the former BC Electric (?) coal gasification plant (I think that's the massive silo you see in some historical photos). That's the most heavily contaminated part of the Expo Lands (and is planned on being remediated "in-situ" with contminants sealed in place (like under Andy Livingston Park)).

Any towers built along there would have coal tar seeping into the underground garages through the concrete walls (even after trying to remediate) - and remember - the Province is responsible for remediation on the Expo Lands - so it would become an ongoing liability for the Province.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Source: Pacific Place Remediation Project - Remediation Plan Summary
www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/bib66916.pdf

Originally Posted by officedweller

Cool pic of new and old Georgia Viaduct, with Dunsmuir Viaduct under construction, posted at Stephens Rees' blog by David:
(Coinicidentally, the pic shows that land in and around the viaducts can be used and has in the past been used.)


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2589/4038505585_08e67331cd_b.jpg

[jsbertram]

I saw a news clip on the Strathcona meeting re: Malkin Connector last night.

Its supposed to be hush-hush until Vancity counsillors make a decision, but one of the slides showed there are now several other options other than using Malkin to connect Main St to Clarke.

a) Malkin (was the preferred choice)
b) National
c) Evans
d) --garbled--

What surprised me was hearing there is no money for a Malkin (or other variant) connector between Main and Clark. CoV is begging for funds (up to $200 million) from Ottawa and Victoria to build this.

It also appears that a slice of the new St Pauls land will be needed.


Strathcona residents should use the Malkin connector as a quid-pro-quo for the viaducts removal -- they could fight to keep the Viaducts until the Malkin connector is built first.


I find it curious that there's no money for new roads, but somewhere in the budget is $60 million (or more) to remove the viaducts.

[s211]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I find it curious that there's no money for new roads, but somewhere in the budget is $60 million (or more) to remove the viaducts.

Vancouver has never had a problem taking money from more pressing issues to promote its heavily-left partisan pet projects.

[Rico]

I don't think I have commented here before because I just don't care that much one way or the other but I have some observations. First I doubt removing the viaducts will result in much traffic change as traffic will adjust. Next I doubt removing the viaducts will really result in a whole lot of USABLE land for redevelopment based on odd shapes and slivers of land. Seems to me that there would be no need to replace the viaducts when they get too old, but seems to me there should be no reason to rush to remove them.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Rico

I don't think I have commented here before because I just don't care that much one way or the other but I have some observations. First I doubt removing the viaducts will result in much traffic change as traffic will adjust. Next I doubt removing the viaducts will really result in a whole lot of USABLE land for redevelopment based on odd shapes and slivers of land. Seems to me that there would be no need to replace the viaducts when they get too old, but seems to me there should be no reason to rush to remove them.

+ may I agree? That's common sense

[Sheba]

I also haven't jumped headlong into this discussion as it doesn't affected me much either. If money is an issue, then for now why don't they remove only the Dunsmuir Viaduct (yes something will have to be done about the bike lane there) and turn the Georgia Viaduct from one-way to two-way? The majority of Georgia St is already two-way so road work to adjust for it should be minimal.

[dharper]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I also haven't jumped headlong into this discussion as it doesn't affected me much either. If money is an issue, then for now why don't they remove only the Dunsmuir Viaduct (yes something will have to be done about the bike lane there) and turn the Georgia Viaduct from one-way to two-way? The majority of Georgia St is already two-way so road work to adjust for it should be minimal.

This is word for word what I was going to post.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

Looking at it the other way if the viaducts didn't currently exist would we build them now?

They're simply not terribly useful when you consider the amount of space they take up.

I have a really tough time coming up with a good reason why the viaducts should continue to exist. Commuting ostensibly gets worse without them, but the Globe article stated it'd increase commutes by 1-3 minutes, which is essentially irrelevant. It's frankly absurd to do away with several blocks of great residential and commercial space on Main street just for an ever so slightly better commute for some people.

We know that automobile traffic is declining. It's not appropriate to continue to maintain automobile oriented infrastructure.

Automobile traffic as a percantage of traffic is not really changing and logic would dicate that in the future it will increase. This whole project is a embarasment and is just another example of why I have abandoned Vancouver. Officedweller hada good post earlier on the current last page describes the crazines of it all.

[nefc]

Here is some new presentation material: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/viaducts-information-technical-findings-july-2015.pdf

from: http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/viaducts-study.aspx

[Vin]

Originally Posted by nefc

Here is some new presentation material: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/viaducts-information-technical-findings-july-2015.pdf

from: http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/viaducts-study.aspx

The "study" report says that 69% of people approve of the viaducts being taken down. Did they, like, make a survey with the City councillors and called them "people?" I suggest we should have our own little poll here in this thread. Seems to me more like the majority of the forumers here are against the removal.

Also the report says that "If Council approve in principle the replacement of the Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaducts, new opportunities
shown below will be explored in more detail", meaning that they do not even have a comprehensive plan after the removal of the viaducts?

If that's the case, how would they know that the traffic situation would still be the same after the removal of the viaducts? Totally hogwash piece of so-called "City Report" I have to say.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Automobile traffic as a percantage of traffic is not really changing and logic would dicate that in the future it will increase. This whole project is a embarasment and is just another example of why I have abandoned Vancouver. Officedweller hada good post earlier on the current last page describes the crazines of it all.

The bold part is completely false. Automobile traffic as a percent of overall traffic into downtown has been shrinking for decades. We are back to 1960s levels in absolute number of cars coming downtown.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Vin

The "study" report says that 69% of people approve of the viaducts being taken down. Did they, like, make a survey with the City councillors and called them "people?" I suggest we should have our own little poll here in this thread. Seems to me more like the majority of the forumers here are against the removal.

In fairness, we did just have an election which Vision won. It was obvious to anyone paying attention that the decision to take down the viaducts was made years ago and, notwithstanding that, Vision won. That's democracy; we get what we deserve.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by nefc

Here is some new presentation material: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/viaducts-information-technical-findings-july-2015.pdf

from: http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/viaducts-study.aspx

From my (quick) review, I didn't see a date on which they plan to start work. I'm planning to sell next year, so hopefully I will be long gone by the time they start making the mess.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Automobile traffic as a percantage of traffic is not really changing...

As WarrenC12 pointed out, that is simply not true.

...and logic would dicate that in the future it will increase.

"Logic" would probably have dictated that in the 1960's too, but it didn't happen.

As cities get bigger and denser the need for mass transit increases and the idea of "cars for everyone" just doesn't work anymore.