Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

We just had one. The viaduct removal plan has been on Vision's radar for years. We've had 2 elections and they got re-elected twice. Majority rules, get over it.

That was a rhetorical question. Not needing response. I too want the viaducts down, the statement was addressing the lack of democratic process.

[s211]

Originally Posted by IanS

Good point. It's been clear for some time now that Vision was going to take down the viaducts if given the chance to do so. We gave them the chance and there's no point in complaining about it now.

On that basis then, quid pro quo, should all the people who "lost" the transit vote shut their pie-holes?

[dreambrother808]

Is there anyone on this forum still writing post after post decrying the referendum results? Nope. It seems like we've all accepted that outcome, and have moved on to other alternatives. Perhaps others could take inspiration from that.

[Infrequent Poster]

Found this kind of interesting. A report commissioned by the city (in 2009), found it would be cheaper to replace the viaducts then to demolish them. http://www.vancourier.com/news/newly-rev...cement-cheaper-than-demolition-1.2066925

[WarrenC12]

From the article:

Associated Engineering estimated the remaining service life of the structures to be 15 years before major rehabilitation or replacement is required. It estimated $43.2 million to replace the Dunsmuir viaduct and $50.29 million to replace the Georgia viaduct. The total in 2015 dollars would be $103.72 million. By comparison, the Powell Street overpass was built in 2014 for $50 million. - See more at: http://www.vancourier.com/news/newly-rev...emolition-1.2066925#sthash.J0isV6Je.dpuf

Given the cost of Powell St, the viaduct replacement would easily be $200M. Using the actual cost of a recent, relevant project is far more useful than a 2009 estimate.

[Infrequent Poster]

So you are just gonna hand wave away the numbers from the report and make up your own? lol.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

So you are just gonna hand wave away the numbers from the report and make up your own? lol.

Just applying your logic. Feel free to hang on to one estimate produced 6 years ago as gospel. That article indicates it would be cheaper to build them again from scratch as compared to demolition. How much sense does that make?

[Infrequent Poster]

I'm not holding onto anything as gospel (of course numbers can and will be off), but if it came down to whose numbers I would trust more. Engineering firm paid money to come up with numbers or random internet forum guy pulling numbers out of thin air, well its a pretty easy choice to make.

From my understanding of what I read (I could be wrong) they are comparing the cost of demo and new road network, to replacement of viaduct cost.

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

So you are just gonna hand wave away the numbers from the report and make up your own? lol.

If you actually look at the report you will see that they have estimated demolition of the Dunsmuir viaduct at $2m and Georgia at $2.25m. So hey lets go back in time and have Associated Engineering do the demo. There, I just saved everybody like a hundred mil.

[Bdawe]

Actually, the article is comparing two different reports, one that says that replacement would cost 103 million in 2009 and another that says in 2013 *could* cost up to 138 million

These are not necessarily apples-and-oranges.

[makr3trkr]

http://www.vancourier.com/news/newly-rev...cement-cheaper-than-demolition-1.2066925

Newly revealed viaducts report says replacement cheaper than demolition
Bob Mackin / Vancouver Courier
September 23, 2015 11:32 AM

"The city originally withheld information about the viaducts, claiming [...] fear of harm to law enforcement and public security.

It relented almost three months after an adjudicator [...] in a ruling that said the city’s claim [Burrard] bridge would be at risk of a terrorist attack was mere speculation."

That seems a tad disingenuous.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

http://www.vancourier.com/news/newly-rev...cement-cheaper-than-demolition-1.2066925

newly revealed viaducts report says replacement cheaper than demolition
bob mackin / vancouver courier
september 23, 2015 11:32 am

"the city originally withheld information about the viaducts, claiming [...] fear of harm to law enforcement and public security.

It relented almost three months after an adjudicator [...] in a ruling that said the city’s claim [burrard] bridge would be at risk of a terrorist attack was mere speculation."

that seems a tad disingenuous.

I lol!

I wonder why they're still putting in so much effort hoping to pull off publicity stunts like this. Could it be mass appeal for the ignorant or gullible folks out there, whom the City hope form the majority?

[Vin]

I'll just post the Vancouvercourier article here just for kicks.....



"A 2009 report commissioned by City of Vancouver estimated the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts could last until 2024 without major rehabilitation and pegged the cost of replacement at less than $100 million.

Associated Engineering noted deterioration of the concrete bridge rail, deck joints and cracking in girders, but concluded the bridges were “generally in good condition.”

“There do not appear to be any significant functional deficiencies at present that would limit the life expectancy [of the viaducts],” said the report, obtained by the Courier last December, after the civic election, in response to an October 2013 Freedom of Information request and subsequent appeal to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner."

- See more at: http://www.vancourier.com/news/newly-rev...emolition-1.2066925#sthash.tTZ85VXV.dpuf

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Just applying your logic. Feel free to hang on to one estimate produced 6 years ago as gospel. That article indicates it would be cheaper to build them again from scratch as compared to demolition. How much sense does that make?

And you treat the City's demolition cost as gospel too? Maybe instead of 138mil, it could actually be 200mil. And that is ONLY the demolishing cost and does not even consider constructing the ramp up Georgia and rebuilding Pacific Boulevard, plus other associated costs like upgrading connecting streets. I'm sure if these are added in, in today's pricing it would be a trillion gazillion dollars.


The point here is, if you still don't get it, it is way cheaper to upgrade the viaducts and continue their use way way beyond their projected 25-year remaining lifespan instead of simply demolishing them. There!

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

The point here is, if you still don't get it, it is way cheaper to upgrade the viaducts and continue their use way way beyond their projected 25-year remaining lifespan instead of simply demolishing them. There!

The article also says they have a 15 year useful life, and development revenue for the land they are over is in the $100M range.

You can spin whatever numbers you like. The viaducts are coming down, get used to it.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

We just had one. The viaduct removal plan has been on Vision's radar for years. We've had 2 elections and they got re-elected twice. Majority rules, get over it.

The problem is that not all concerned get to vote on this issue.

This is a major road with regional implications.

Why do people living west of Main street, who have probably never used the viaducts, so don't see their value, have more say over the viaducts than the people who actually use them and benefit from their existence, but just happen to live outside the city bounds?

It's like if Burnaby decided the Trans Canada needed a traffic light at Gaglardi (just to keep the highway clear for Burnaby residents).

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The problem is that not all concerned get to vote on this issue.

This is a major road with regional implications.

Why do people living west of Main street, who have probably never used the viaducts, so don't see their value, have more say over the viaducts than the people who actually use them and benefit from their existence, but just happen to live outside the city bounds?

It's like if Burnaby decided the Trans Canada needed a traffic light at Gaglardi (just to keep the highway clear for Burnaby residents).

That's why the Trans Canada Highway is owned and operated by the Province.

The viaducts are property of the people of Vancouver, not Burnaby or Surrey or what have you. If you've gotten used to the free use of something that isn't yours, that's been nice for you but they don't belong to you.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

That's why the Trans Canada Highway is owned and operated by the Province.

The viaducts are property of the people of Vancouver, not Burnaby or Surrey or what have you. If you've gotten used to the free use of something that isn't yours, that's been nice for you but they don't belong to you.

That's overly simplistic; it's not exactly free. Their existence has made downtown Vancouver, specifically the CBD, accessible for decades to people from outside the city. That has made downtown very successful. Lots of money is made off the fact that downtown didn't die off. Would downtown today be as successful if it was hard to get to? Would jobs be located there? Would I be spending money there, have a job there? Or would we have even more office sprawl.

If all of Vancouver had the same dickish attitude to people who come to the city to contribute to the economy, I don't think it would be quite the success that it is today.

So don't say we don't pay for it. We work or visit Vancouver, thus contribute to the successful economy, that creates high property values, that the city taxes. We could have taken our money somewhere else all this time. Many people make significant sacrifices to work downtown. Don't brush them aside like they don't mater.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

That's overly simplistic; it's not exactly free. Their existence has made downtown Vancouver, specifically the CBD, accessible for decades to people from outside the city. That has made downtown very successful. Lots of money is made off the fact that downtown didn't die off. Would downtown today be as successful if it was hard to get to? Would jobs be located there? Would I be spending money there, have a job there? Or would we have even more office sprawl.

If all of Vancouver had the same dickish attitude to people who come to the city to contribute to the economy, I don't think it would be quite the success that it is today.

So don't say we don't pay for it. We work or visit Vancouver, thus contribute to the successful economy, that creates high property values, that the city taxes. We could have taken our money somewhere else all this time. Many people make significant sacrifices to work downtown. Don't brush them aside like they don't mater.

I simply can't take seriously any argument that the differences between the viaducts and a surface road are the difference between access and inaccessibility or the difference between successes and failure for downtown.

Could you make your point in a less silly way?

[trofirhen]

My question and concern is really rather simple.
It is evident that the viaducts are coming down sooner or later, more likely sooner than later.
OK. Given that fact, I want to know what the KEY intersections and access points (Georgia springs to mind) will have as intersections.
Will the intersections just be 4-way stoplights? Or is it possible to have some kind of "diamond" intersection" to help keep through-traffic (esp ambulances) flowing easily.

Also, given that this will be a "Super Road" with eight lanes, would it be possible to start at the eastern end
and build something anomalous to the Hyde Park Underpass in London for through-traffic wanting to go further West than downtown?

The developers/green space/bare concrete emptiness issues are another animal.