Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Infrequent Poster]

Well we can all rest easy then I'm convinced. Removing the viaducts will change nothing.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

So now, let's rethink what is considered irrational.

The viaducts sit on some land that is extremely rich in development potential, both up front and in the form of lasting property taxes.

But by all means, keep arguing against something that will happen no matter what you think. I love the whining...

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

An average speed of 24 km/h to drive 12 km during non-rush hour is good??? And removing the viaducts to make journeys by car even longer is also good?

24km/h through a street grid with traffic lights is a pretty decent speed. To do substantially better, you'd have to bypass the grid by extending the viaducts or tunneling, the same way that transit becomes "rapid" when you use grade separation. That essentially means a freeway, which is simply a non-starter in Vancouver.

And: the viaducts are a pretty small part of that 12km, so removing them isn't going to have that much impact.

And: chances are that the replacement road will use timed signals, which can significantly improve traffic flow to the point where it's really not that much different that the viaducts.

Is it going to be slower without the viaducts? Very likely. Is it going to be so by a huge amount? Probably not.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The viaducts sit on some land that is extremely rich in development potential, both up front and in the form of lasting property taxes.

But by all means, keep arguing against something that will happen no matter what you think. I love the whining...

Anyway, getting at that land and developing it is what the essence of removing the viaducts is all about; let's at least be honest.
Tear them, down, build it up, make the road pretty, and hear the contented laughter as those $$$$ start rolling in.
To hell with traffic efficiency. If people say it'll be efficient, it'll be efficient. Why? People everyone says so. And if everybody says so, it must be true.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The viaducts sit on some land that is extremely rich in development potential, both up front and in the form of lasting property taxes.

But by all means, keep arguing against something that will happen no matter what you think. I love the whining...

Where as every one of your posts could be perceived (excuse me for putting it this way) as gloating. Its a thread for discussing there removal and whether or not its a stupid idea (it is). Just because something stupid is most likely going to happen is in my opinion more of a reason to keep discussing it.

[Sprawl]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

Its a thread for discussing there removal and whether or not its a stupid idea (it is).

Yet demonstrably it is not. Several million dollars have been spent comprehensively addressing this question. Rigorous planning, modelling and assessment has identified and specified zero negative impact on vehicle capacity and acceptable negative impact on vehicular movement in the order of 60-180 seconds, with the added benefits of improved vehicle circulation and increased route choice. The body of theoretical and case study literature would suggest that the proposed efforts to accommodate vehicles may even overcompensate, with the less quantifiable but clearly observable variable of 'disappearing traffic' likely to reduce the already negligible negative impact even further than predicted.

Once economic viability, community support and lack of disbenefit (or indeed actual benefit) to vehicle movement is demonstrated, all of which have been, the case for removal becomes an inarguably sensible idea from the standpoint of literally any metric by which we assess whether or not an urban planning concept has merit which provide a clear and rational argument in favour of removal.

Originally Posted by trofirhen

To hell with traffic efficiency. If people say it'll be efficient, it'll be efficient. Why? People everyone says so. And if everybody says so, it must be true.

Well, no. Because comprehensive (and even more expensive) traffic modelling and iterative concepts have produced a design which is, literally, efficient.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Sprawl

Well, no. Because comprehensive (and even more expensive) traffic modelling and iterative concepts have produced a design which is, literally, efficient.

I was being bitterly cynical, I will admit; but are you saying the new Super Road, with all its traffic lights will, in fact, be efficient?
Time will tell, and if the whole thing backfires, they'll be wearing the egg on their faces. If it works out, "tant mieux."

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

Where as every one of your posts could be perceived (excuse me for putting it this way) as gloating. Its a thread for discussing there removal and whether or not its a stupid idea (it is). Just because something stupid is most likely going to happen is in my opinion more of a reason to keep discussing it.

If you'd go back far enough in this thread, you'd find my initial reaction to this proposal was negative. I thought it was stupid to tear the viaducts down.

I've given it plenty of thought and looked at the area in detail many times since then (I live nearby), and I've decided the area is probably better without the viaducts.

Given the economics of the situation (ie: development potential pays for the cost of removal), I've come to terms with it and I'm looking forward to what comes next.

I live downtown and I use 3 primary methods of getting out of the core. If I'm going towards the 99, I use the Granville St. bridge. If I'm going into Vancouver, I use Pacific/Expo around to Main St. If I'm going on Hwy 1, I use Powell.

The viaducts to me span between two already crowded areas I avoid, the first being Prior/Venables which jams up at Clark and basically ends at Commercial. The other side is Georgia which is busy towards the park and Lions Gate.

The question to me always comes back to "would we build them if they didn't already exist". Ignoring cost, what if they were free? I still don't think they'd be worth it (paying operational costs only).

[jlousa]

So with news that the costs have jumped to $200M to demolish we will hear the city alter the plans by selling off more of the land to pay for those costs, reducing the green space used to sell the public on the concept. But that was the plan all along anyways...

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The viaducts sit on some land that is extremely rich in development potential, both up front and in the form of lasting property taxes.

But by all means, keep arguing against something that will happen no matter what you think. I love the whining...

I hope you don't mean to develop another O.V.? Fact is, you don't get much extra land to develop since the skytrain guideways are already in place, and if Pacific Blvd is to be widened should the viaducts go. This point has been put forward many times, but supporters of the viaduct-removal can't even counter it.

Developers and the City can generate more revenue if the latter allows buildings to go up higher (abolish the damn viewcones). Freeing up a little land here and there to build short and stout condos by removing an important urban link is simply crazy.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

I hope you don't mean to develop another O.V.? Fact is, you don't get much extra land to develop since the skytrain guideways are already in place, and if Pacific Blvd is to be widened should the viaducts go. This point has been put forward many times, but supporters of the viaduct-removal can't even counter it.

Just look at google maps satellite view to see how much space the viaducts take up compared to the skytrain line, and all of the freed space as a result, particularly on the east side.

Pacific will expand a lane or two. Eliminating street parking will take care of the rest.

But yes, you're right. We could just solve everything by eliminating view cones and building malls.

[officedweller]

Remember that there's a lot of contamination on those lands - so the cost of developing would be very high. That's why most of the Concord lands in the area would be occupied by Creekside Park - entombing the contamination underground.

[Kodii]

I don't recall seeing this before, is it new?


http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/viaducts-information-technical-findings-july-2015.pdf

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

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Remember that there's a lot of contamination on those lands - so the cost of developing would be very high. That's why most of the Concord lands in the area would be occupied by Creekside Park - entombing the contamination underground.

Isn't the province on the hook for some of the remediation, back from Expo 86?

[officedweller]

Yup - on Concord Pacific's Expo Lands - I don't think that includes the CoV lands under the viaducts.

[Sheba]

Is there enough traffic to warrant keeping both of the viaducts (I don't drive)? Would it be possible to move all the traffic to the Georgia viaduct (most of Georgia is a two way street) and demolish the Dunsmuir viaduct for whatever it is they have planned for it.

[logan5]

The VanCity Buzz article is stating that there would be 2500 units built on the 2 blocks of land slated to be developed. That is a lot of units for that amount of land. In any event, the sale of that land should easily cover the total costs of the project.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Kodii

I don't recall seeing this before, is it new?


http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/viaducts-information-technical-findings-july-2015.pdf

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

Thx!!

Hmm did they plant enough trees. I'm not sure lmao

200 million to remove them. Ugh surely there's better use for that money elsewhere. It's bizarre. I mean it's great to develop the land but they can do that with the viaducts.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

Where as every one of your posts could be perceived (excuse me for putting it this way) as gloating. Its a thread for discussing there removal and whether or not its a stupid idea (it is). Just because something stupid is most likely going to happen is in my opinion more of a reason to keep discussing it.

Well given that he has played the role of Vision apologist for years his attitude is not surprising.

$200 million is an insane amount to spend on destroying something. we could have downtown streetcar for less than that.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Is there enough traffic to warrant keeping both of the viaducts (I don't drive)? Would it be possible to move all the traffic to the Georgia viaduct (most of Georgia is a two way street) and demolish the Dunsmuir viaduct for whatever it is they have planned for it.

You should stake out at the viaducts everyday and see how much traffic is on both the elevated roadways, and most of the time the heavy traffic can move swiftly through. When there are games at the stadiums or during special events, the viaducts are simply fully-loaded and even congested.

Having all the traffic moved to one viaduct is not feasibly as there aren't enough lanes to warrant a two-way traffic flow. They are already so busy as they are.

The viaducts have another advantage: they have been making money for the City when a number of TV shows were filmed there in the summer.