Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[aberdeen5698]

This will probably not assuage the Chicken Littles in this debate, but Stephen Ree has made a paper available describing how traffic adapts to changes in the road network. Below is the abstract:

Reallocating roadspace from general traffic, to improve conditions for pedestrians or cyclists or buses or on-street light rail or other high-occupancy vehicles, is often predicted to cause major traffic problems on neighbouring streets. This paper reports on two phases of research, resulting in the examination of over 70 case studies of roadspace reallocation from eleven countries, and the collation of opinions from over 200 transport professionals worldwide. The findings suggest that predictions of traffic problems are often unnecessarily alarmist, and that, given appropriate local circumstances, significant reductions in overall traffic levels can occur, with people making a far wider range of behavioural responses than has traditionally been assumed. Follow-up work has also highlighted the importance of managing how schemes are perceived by the public and reported in the media, with various lessons for avoiding problems. Finally, the findings highlight that well-designed schemes to reallocate roadspace can often contribute to a multiplicity of different policy aims and objectives.

The section "predictions of traffic problems are often unnecessarily alarmist" seems to apply here.

[trofirhen]

I have no great love for the viaducts. They are not beautiful, though they do lend a touch of "big city feeling" to downtown
My main concern is that whatever replaces them will be equal to or better in handling traffic in and out of downtown.
As for taking as Gospel what one English traffic engineer claims (and motorways and "A" roads are often notoriously underbuilt, in London, anyway,) seems premature.
I'm fed up with small-thinking "greenie weenie" city engineers slowing Vancouver down, and turning it into an even worse disaster.
Go hire a "new thinking" American to do the job, and get this piddly-widdly English attitude out of here. Christopher Robin died years ago. Tiddly-pom.
(Though I will admit Park Lane and the Hyde Park Underpass were built on the right scale.)

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

This will probably not assuage the Chicken Littles in this debate, but Stephen Ree has made a paper available describing how traffic adapts to changes in the road network. Below is the abstract:

The section "predictions of traffic problems are often unnecessarily alarmist" seems to apply here.

How is what that study shows any better?

Ok, there might not be increased traffic congestion. But that means that there are people who are just not doing what they want to do. The study states that it is possible that overall travel in the network decreases.

It does cite a study, in one location where overall network travel stayed the same when road capacity was removed. But that is only one example

From the study:

The
feasibility of scaling up the successes of local schemes into
more comprehensive initiatives is currently unclear.

So it depends on the greater plan. Which the study didn't study.

According to their study, if we remove the viaducts, it is possible that we will not see any increase in congestion. But the study doesn't predict why. But, without a plan on how we are going to convert those lost car trips to another means, the study shows that we will lose travel in the network. Meaning less people will travel downtown.

What is Vancouver's plan on making downtown travel better to keep people going there? How does removing the viaducts make any other route a better alternative for cars? How does the plan speed up Transit and make it more reliable?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by logan5

That land surely must be worth way more than the cost of deconstructing the viaducts and reconfiguring Pacific.

otherwise stated; who is kissing whom?

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

otherwise stated; who is kissing whom?

...and what are they kissing??

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

...and what are they kissing??

precisely.

[logan5]

So what is the value of that of land that flanks Main? I calculate 1.5 million buildable sq ft. What would the going rate for that area be? Is 250 per sq foot reasonable? That would put the value of that land at 375 million dollars. That has to be much more than the cost of viaduct deconstruction.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by logan5

So what is the value of that of land that flanks Main? I calculate 1.5 million buildable sq ft. What would the going rate for that area be? Is 250 per sq foot reasonable? That would put the value of that land at 375 million dollars. That has to be much more than the cost of viaduct deconstruction.

Unlike what Puff Daddy would assert, it's not all about the Benjamins.

Just because a government can do one thing in an isolated transaction and come out with more money, doesn't mean it is a good decision.

I'm sure the City could tear down the central library and make a heck of a lot of money selling the land. That lone transaction would be hugely profitable. But that is not only ignoring the current value of the assets that haven't been amortized away but also ignores the net impact that the institution has on the population, culture, and economy of the city which is difficult to measure in direct dollars.

Same with the viaducts. Demolishing them not only costs money, but also erases the value of the asset (which counts as a loss in accounting) and negates any kind of opportunity cost that previous generations committed to (the sacrifices they made on their budgets to build the viaducts are completely ignored). There are also positive aspects to their existence that affect the entire region that can't be measure with dollars on a land transaction.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Unlike what Puff Daddy would assert, it's not all about the Benjamins.

Just because a government can do one thing in an isolated transaction and come out with more money, doesn't mean it is a good decision.

I'm sure the City could tear down the central library and make a heck of a lot of money selling the land. That lone transaction would be hugely profitable. But that is not only ignoring the current value of the assets that haven't been amortized away but also ignores the net impact that the institution has on the population, culture, and economy of the city which is difficult to measure in direct dollars.

Same with the viaducts. Demolishing them not only costs money, but also erases the value of the asset (which counts as a loss in accounting) and negates any kind of opportunity cost that previous generations committed to (the sacrifices they made on their budgets to build the viaducts are completely ignored). There are also positive aspects to their existence that affect the entire region that can't be measure with dollars on a land transaction.

And not forgetting the City can make billions tearing down the trees of Stanley Park and make a second downtown. We'd be extremely rich!

[Pinion]

Any new maps etc. from the public consultation that happened recently? news1130 was talking about the Malkin (or National?!) connector a lot today

Your drive into downtown Vancouver could include a major new east-west route in the not-too-distant future.

The city is looking at how to redevelop the False Creek Flats — 450 acres of prime real estate just east of Science World — with first public consultation on the planning process wrapping up at the end of August.

Though the area has been pegged as a hub for “green” and high tech industry, transportation is a major issue for many people, especially with the city pushing to demolish the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts.

“I think the ideas we have received are great,” says Brian Jackson, Vancouver’s manager of planning and development, pointing out 1,800 people took part in an open house, workshops and an online survey through the summer.

“Common themes included better connections, both north-south as well as east-west, there were comments about unlocking the economic potential and the creation of improved places and amenities as part of the planning area,” he tells NEWS 1130.

Jackson says the biggest challenge for the redevelopment of the False Creek Flats — bounded by Prior and Venables streets to the north, Clark Drive to the east, Great Northern Way to the south, and Main Street to the west — is the lack of connections.

“People are looking for the eastward corridor from the roads that would replace the viaducts to Clark. It comes down to the design choices — whether it’s National or Malkin or any other possible east-west connector that we are still working on.”

The division of the flats north-south by railyards was also a hot topic during the public consultation.

“We recognize that the tracks will be there for a long time and that they have to be considered in terms of both the type of uses adjacent to the tracks as well as making sure that we have connections. It’s a large area and we have to make sure that there are pedestrian and cycling connections and possibly vehicular connections as well.”

The pending move of Saint Paul’s Hospital to a new location on Station Street was also a major talking point.

“There was some discussion about the new Saint Paul’s and the impact it would have have on the plan but we feel the hospital — in terms of medical uses — is actually not that different from the high tech uses that could have been developed on the Providence site. We don’t see it as a significant issue in terms of what we would have recommended,” says Jackson.

The city will now incorporate the public input as it works on major themes for the redevelopment of the False Creek Flats over the next few months.

It’s hoped a final plan for the area will go before City Council by next fall.

http://www.news1130.com/2015/09/02/people-like-the-idea-of-a-new-east-west-route-downtown/

[st7860]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Unlike what Puff Daddy would assert, it's not all about the Benjamins.

Just because a government can do one thing in an isolated transaction and come out with more money, doesn't mean it is a good decision.

I'm sure the City could tear down the central library and make a heck of a lot of money selling the land. That lone transaction would be hugely profitable. But that is not only ignoring the current value of the assets that haven't been amortized away but also ignores the net impact that the institution has on the population, culture, and economy of the city which is difficult to measure in direct dollars.

Same with the viaducts. Demolishing them not only costs money, but also erases the value of the asset (which counts as a loss in accounting) and negates any kind of opportunity cost that previous generations committed to (the sacrifices they made on their budgets to build the viaducts are completely ignored). There are also positive aspects to their existence that affect the entire region that can't be measure with dollars on a land transaction.

dont think the city could redevelop the library since there are many federal tenants in that building.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by st7860

dont think the city could redevelop the library since there are many federal tenants in that building.

You completely missed the point he was making.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Jebby

You completely missed the point he was making.

Equating the viaducts with the public library makes no point whatsoever.

[officedweller]

The point is that the "highest and best use" of land isn't necessarily the best use for the public.

i.e. Stanley Park or any City of Vancouver park could be sold off and redeveloped - but the intrinsic value of the land as park space is more valuable.

Likewise, the City could stop-up and close streets and sell off the land (like what was proposed for Oakridge / South Cambie a few years ago) - but there is value in maintaining the streets.

There was similar outcry to a proposal to sell off the part of Langara Golf Course fronting Cambie Street for redevelopment.

Then there's also the issue of control.

So there are similar arguments regarding P3s and governments relinquishing control of projects or assets (even if only for a defined period).

[logan5]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Unlike what Puff Daddy would assert, it's not all about the Benjamins.

It's not all about the Benjamins, but it doesn't hurt.

More importantly though, the 1000's of new residents that will occupy the Viaduct Lands will reignite our oldest and greatest neighbourhood - the DTES. This neighbourhood is destined to be the cultural heart of our city, in large part because of the viaduct removal.

The Bonaventure (elevated) Expressway in Montreal is being torn down, with a wide blvd to replace it. A bit longer than the Georgia Viaduct, the cost of this project will be 141 million$. Probly a good cost estimate for the viaduct replacement here.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by logan5

More importantly though, the 1000's of new residents that will occupy the Viaduct Lands will reignite our oldest and greatest neighbourhood - the DTES. This neighbourhood is destined to be the cultural heart of our city, in large part because of the viaduct removal.

All of which could be achieved with the viaducts in place. It's just that the CoV has an agenda and absolutely no imagination. Go to Europe and you'll see how viaducts (some of which are way more obstructive than the ones we have) don't have to be an impediment to a vibrant neighbourhood.

What is being proposed will make this area even more of a dead zone than with the viaducts in place. An 8-lane arterial road (no doubt with a bland grassy median) and vast expanses of boring grass-field parks, residential with little or no commercial components, and unimaginative architecture will ensure that this area is anything but a vibrant community. It'll just be another (probably even more boring and sterile) largely residential neighbourhood.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Jebby

All of which could be achieved with the viaducts in place. It's just that the CoV has an agenda and absolutely no imagination. Go to Europe and you'll see how viaducts (some of which are way more obstructive than the ones we have) don't have to be an impediment to a vibrant neighbourhood.

What is being proposed will make this area even more of a dead zone than with the viaducts in place. An 8-lane arterial road (no doubt with a bland grassy median) and vast expanses of boring grass-field parks, residential with little or no commercial components, and unimaginative architecture will ensure that this area is anything but a vibrant community. It'll just be another (probably even more boring and sterile) largely residential neighbourhood.

Agreed.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

More importantly though, the 1000's of new residents that will occupy the Viaduct Lands will reignite our oldest and greatest neighbourhood - the DTES. This neighbourhood is destined to be the cultural heart of our city, in large part because of the viaduct removal.

That is simply over-generalization. DTES is so rundown now due to its own problems, and the arrival of new residents will not automatically make it go away. Thousands of new residents can still move into the area, including the Expo lands, as long as the city removes the viewcone restrictions and allow new condos to go tall and housing more people. Enforcement agencies have to crack down hard on drug users and other criminal elements in the area. The viaducts do not have to go to make DTES vibrant again.

[logan5]

An influx of new residents will rejuvenate the dtes. The Woodwards project had a hugely positive impact on the surrounding area. That is clear. The viaduct lands will bring a couple thousand people 400 metres away from Main and Hastings. The positive impact is easy to predict.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by logan5

An influx of new residents will rejuvenate the dtes. The Woodwards project had a hugely positive impact on the surrounding area. That is clear. The viaduct lands will bring a couple thousand people 400 metres away from Main and Hastings. The positive impact is easy to predict.

The viaducts don't have to be removed for this to happen.