Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Well, IMHO the best way to improve transportation capacity with the maximum benefit to society is to build more rapid transit lines. Such lines can carry far, far more people for a given amount of space than cars can.

And just to preempt the "goods movement" argument that someone is inevitably going to raise: yes, we do need roads to move goods. But those goods will move much more easily if the roads aren't clogged with commuters. The answer to goods movement isn't to build more roads because that will just attract more commuters. The answer is to provide alternatives for commuters and then motivate them through the use of road pricing and/or transit incentives. That will free up road space for the sectors that really need it. Oh, and road pricing doesn't have to increase the cost of goods movement because you can apply it selectively - for example trucks or commercial vehicles could be exempt or priced at a lower rate, as could carpooled vehicles.

Transit lines also require huge investments. Which, if you read any of my other posts in other threads, I'm all for.

However, this thread is about spending money to remove capacity with no money earmarked toward increasing transit capacity in any way.

We're going to spend $200 million to remove capacity, when a billion would be needed to replace it with rapid transit.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but you've been against the downtown streetcar, which is pretty much the only affordable proposal to replace lost street capacity around downtown with rapid transit. A street car can carry far more people than a car or small bus can, and can operate is some dedicated lanes downtown (that wouldn't take even further space away from critical vehicle corridors).

If the Viaducts plan came with a proposal to use the money generated from selling off public land to build more public transit instead of a giant grass field, then I might be more for it.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

According to Jerry Dobrovolny, car trips into downtown have declined 20 percent in the last 15 years - i.e., since 2000. None of that has anything to do with the 1960's or 90's.

And according to page 7 of the Vancouver Transportation Plan update, at the same time that those vehicle trips into downtown declined by 20% the number of jobs downtown increased by 26%. So yes, Vancouver is growing - but by providing downtown housing and transportation alternatives the City has shown shown that this growth can occur without having to accommodate more vehicles.

It depends on which figures you look at. In the first link, it is hard to critique the figure of "20% less traffic" as it is quite vague and hard to know what it's talking about. It doesn't explicitly give any data, so lets move on to the second link.

The data in the document is all over the place. If you look at journey to work trips in the entire city, it is only down 5%. That's still good. But it shows the overall trend of the population at large.

As the city has grown, there has been a growth in transit ridership and as more homes open in the city, more people can walk. But there has been an explosive growth in the number of homes that can't continue at the same rate of expansion forever. Eventually job growth will outpace condo growth downtown. More people can work in 1 building than live in one. So the growth of walking will slow.

1996 to 2010 also coincide with several major expansions in Rapid Transit in the region. Expo capacity increases, Milennium line and Canada Lines were built, and the WCE went into service in 1995.

So transit capacity has exploded over the past few decades, mostly focusing on downtown. And Transit has indeed gotten busier too. Yet, only a 5% decrease in total car trips to work in the city. Unless we keep opening transit lines into downtown how can we keep up these trends?

An interesting figure is figure 7. Between 1996 and 2006, car trips into downtown from all points outside, are constant, while transit has grown. It shows that a lot of new workers to downtown take transit. But Skytrain is racing towards capacity. How much longer can the trend of: "for every new job downtown there is a new transit rider" keep up until there is no more capacity on transit into downtown? Also, figure 5 shows an increase in drivers to work in the city at large by city residents.

That data also ends in 2006 right before the recession. What would have happened to job growth downtown had growth continued unimpeded? There was a surprising amount of job growth downtown during the recession, but there was also a lot of uncertainty and people did lose jobs.

To me, all the data shows is that the population in the city and region at large drives, but downtown has seen a corresponding decrease in traffic in conjunction with increases in transit capacity. If capacity does not continue to grow at a brisk pace in the future, there is no way downtown can keep up.

We basically went from nothing to what we have now; think about it, King George opened in 1994 and rapid transit overall was 10 years old. We went from no transit capacity and a crashed economy in 1986 to 2010 (the tail end of another recession). I don't think you can say that the time frame is indicative of what the future has in store under different circumstance.

There won't be such a huge percentage of housing growth and transit capacity increases as there has been over the past 2 decades, and we will probably see an even larger growth of our economy. If all the variables change, the results can't be the same.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

And to bring it all back to the topic of the viaducts: fewer cars trips into downtown means that removing them is unlikely to result in the "Carmaggedon" that the fearmongers always predict whenever the roads are tinkered with. It could very well add a few minutes to people's commute, but it won't be the end of the world.

If losing a few minutes isn't the end of the world, then could you do me a favor?

Could you just sit motionless, and not do anything and just look at the wall for 3 minutes? I'll wait....

...

Ok. Now, do it again. I'll wait...

....

Ok. Now do that, sit motionless for 3 minutes twice a day, 5 days a week, forever. It's not a big deal, I swear.

Thanks.

What? That's stupid you say?

It sure is. Just wasting 6 minutes of your day, every day just because someone asked you to? It is ridiculous. I'm glad you don't want to do it.

Now imagine asking tens of thousands of people to do that, just because someone wants a grassy field.

[WBC]

Originally Posted by officedweller

That's exactly the question.

The $300M would include some "extra" development fees received by the City because Concord's lands are freed up a bit more for development of additional square footage than with the viaducts in place - but what's the amount of that difference?

That makes no sense that these are extra fees. If they plan to build 2000 units there with 300 mill in extra fees that would come at 150K per unit in extra fees. How expensive are those units going to be?

[officedweller]

Yeah, that's why I said the $300M would "INCLUDE" some extra fees.... (i.e. NOT ALL of the $300M are on account of "extra" fees). - the question is how much?

[logan5]

Quote BC Phil -To me, all the data shows is that the population in the city and region at large drives, but downtown has seen a corresponding decrease in traffic in conjunction with increases in transit capacity. If capacity does not continue to grow at a brisk pace in the future, there is no way downtown can keep up.

As far as the viaduct lands go, transit capacity should not be a problem because, as we see with the other downtown neighbourhoods, a high proportion of residents will walk to work, or commute opposite to rush hour where there is extra capacity.

[Sprawl]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I don't think he was trying to say that Vancouver would be better off today with the sawmills instead of condos.

I think what he is getting at is that you can't just compare 2 points in time and say that constitutes a trend.

Comparing 1965 to 2010 does not prove anything directly. In the 60's downtown was a hotbed of industrial jobs and most of those people lived outside downtown. And at the time, all there was was a decent bus network (that benefited people living near downtown), so most people working downtown drove from outside downtown.

What comparing 2 dates so far apart on the calendar does is skip huge setbacks.

The other date on the graph was 1976, probably the height of the Vancouver Economy before the recession.

The 70's saw a recession that hit BC pretty hard. Hastings was Vancouver's main drag, everyone ate dinner in Chinatown, and people came from all over to go to shows on Granville street. Then Hastings became the DTES, Chinatown became forgotten, and Granville street became a — Mecca. In the 80's, downtown crashed. It crashed hard. The rail yards moved out, the mills closed down, warehouses shuttered. Thousands of jobs left. Gone were many commuters. It was a huge setback.

BC place was a —. Expo was a desperate attempt to save BC. Skytrain was a far out vision to encourage growth region wide. Slowly downtown recovered, then faster after a setback in the 90's.

The fact that traffic into downtown now is comparable to 1965 shows that Vancouver is growing, not stable. That doesn't even take into account the 60,000 or so people brought in by Skytrain at capacity during the 3 hour rush period. If Vancouver grows more into the future, how are those people going to get into downtown? The only reason we are not at the 1976 level is because the Skytrain has taken tens of thousands of cars off the road. But it does not have infinite capacity. What happens when Vancouver grows even more?

The only reason 2010 is comparable to 1965 isn't because we had constant growth and slowly transitioned people to Skytrain over time.

You can't look at 2 points that are the same and draw a straight line and say everything has been the same therefore will be the same.

That is like me taking a math test I took when I was 14 again today. Maybe I would get the exact same score, but that doesn't mean I know the exact same amount today as I did back then, nor does it show I will never learn anything in the future.

For someone so dismissive of those two data points, you're making a whole lot of assertions supported by no points at all.

[red-paladin]

City of Vancouver reveals artist renderings of viaduct-free downtown
Public hearing to take place on Wednesday on proposal to remove the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts

CBC News Posted: Oct 20, 2015 6:47 PM PT Last Updated: Oct 21, 2015 3:28 PM PT





(Click on the link to see the actual article)

From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/georgia-dunsmuir-viaducts-renderings-1.3281184

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

If losing a few minutes isn't the end of the world, then could you do me a favor?

Could you just sit motionless, and not do anything and just look at the wall for 3 minutes? I'll wait....

As someone who practices meditation, I think the point you're trying to make is not having the effect you're hoping for...

[IanS]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Well as you indicated, it's pretty much a moot point now as there is probably no chance that any development will be done with the viaducts in place.

My point was that it's moot because, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea to remove the viaducts, it's going to happen and it's been going to happen for some time now.

I don't think my question about the "development fees" is moot, though. If, by removing the viaduct, the additional land freed up will result in an additional, say, $50 million in development fees only, then the assertion that the project will pay for itself is simply wrong. On the other hand, if the removal of the viaducts will result in an additional $200 million, then it will pay for itself (assuming the City's cost estimate is accurate, which is another issue.)

[WarrenC12]

Fees are based on build-able square feet right? What are rates for similar areas either in or with close proximity to the downtown core, and/or water? This proposal should increase build-able sf by about 1M on the high end, IIRC.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by IanS

My point was that it's moot because, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea to remove the viaducts, it's going to happen and it's been going to happen for some time now.

I don't think my question about the "development fees" is moot, though. If, by removing the viaduct, the additional land freed up will result in an additional, say, $50 million in development fees only, then the assertion that the project will pay for itself is simply wrong. On the other hand, if the removal of the viaducts will result in an additional $200 million, then it will pay for itself (assuming the City's cost estimate is accurate, which is another issue.)

There were other plans to build towers around and between the viaducts before this all started a few years ago. Once that possibility became known publicly, those plans were put on hold.

Jlousa had the real data for how much was going to be built with them in place vs. not in place, and the difference was minimal.

I think he has given up posting that time and time again now because once his post became buried by a couple pages the same questions / incorrect claims would reemerge again.

Again, love the renders showing all the big green fields that could be put in place just as easily with the viaducts in place.

the first render doesn't even show any areas that the viaducts currently cover.

The funny thing is I would be more okay with their removal if something a little more interesting / creative was being built in the absence. What we are getting is a huge bore (most of which could be done with them in place).

Also, I feel the massive park itself will still be a barrier between the areas to the west and east of it.

Don;t get me wrong, I love parks, but I love parks with nice gardens, interesting features, nice amenities, etc... Some fields are nice / needed, but this is overkill.

For me the worst part of downtown is David Lam Park. Aside form the Seawall (which is always nice) it is the most boring park in the city. Just a massive empty sprawl of lawn. I hate it. There are many nice parks around with big open lawns, but just how this park was landscaped is incredibly boring for the heart of downtown.

I feel this park looks like it will be another David Lam Bore with featureless open space overkill.

[jlousa]

I agree, the viaducts are coming down unfortunately. The city will take a bath on this "vision". The best we can do now is minimize the size of the bath and work to improve the proposal.
I'd start with reverting back to Concord's previous proposal of trading land and building creekside park linearly along the whole strecth as opposed to the current chunk of towers followed by a large chunk of park. The linear park would be less of an obstacle and more practical in this context. Concord could be coaxed into sweeting the pot as by going linear they'd have more water/park views to sell as well.

[a very long weekend]

^ plus do commercial the length of the strip so that the area is active for uses other than jogging or rollerblading.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Of course they do, but when you take 80 people out of single-occupancy vehicles and put them into a bus or even on bicycles they use a lot less road space than cars. So you either need fewer roads or (as has been happening over the last 15 years) can accommodate more people without having to build more roads.

The flaw with that argument is that the $200 million is going to come from development fees for building on the land freed up by removing the viaducts. It's not just sitting around in a bank account waiting to be spent.

You are assuming that there hasn't been an increase in population growth of the whole region since 2000, but since then I'm sure we had more buses coming downtown. At the moment, bike lanes are not efficiently used, and so we cannot take away more road space. I don't hear people say that there are less traffic congestion these days.

Land is freed up by tearing down the viaducts, but most of it is still used to widen Pacific Boulevard to 8 lanes. With whatever is left, is the City going to sell it to developers for 200mil?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

There were other plans to build towers around and between the viaducts before this all started a few years ago. Once that possibility became known publicly, those plans were put on hold.

Jlousa had the real data for how much was going to be built with them in place vs. not in place, and the difference was minimal.

I think he has given up posting that time and time again now because once his post became buried by a couple pages the same questions / incorrect claims would reemerge again.

Again, love the renders showing all the big green fields that could be put in place just as easily with the viaducts in place.

the first render doesn't even show any areas that the viaducts currently cover.

The funny thing is I would be more okay with their removal if something a little more interesting / creative was being built in the absence. What we are getting is a huge bore (most of which could be done with them in place).

Also, I feel the massive park itself will still be a barrier between the areas to the west and east of it.

Don;t get me wrong, I love parks, but I love parks with nice gardens, interesting features, nice amenities, etc... Some fields are nice / needed, but this is overkill.

For me the worst part of downtown is David Lam Park. Aside form the Seawall (which is always nice) it is the most boring park in the city. Just a massive empty sprawl of lawn. I hate it. There are many nice parks around with big open lawns, but just how this park was landscaped is incredibly boring for the heart of downtown.

I feel this park looks like it will be another David Lam Bore with featureless open space overkill.

Exactly. There is already a pretty huge park in that neighbourhood. It's called Andy Livingston Park. I don't see residents actively using that park, but I do see a lot of homeless folks and drug addicts milling over there. So why are local residents demanding more park?

At least David Lam Park is quite welcoming to local residents, with the absense of shady characters.. People play soccer and football there, or simply hang out throwing frisbee. In the summer, the area is greatly used for events such as the Jazz Fentival, etc.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Vin

Exactly. There is already a pretty huge park in that neighbourhood. It's called Andy Livingston Park. I don't see residents actively using that park, but I do see a lot of homeless folks and drug addicts milling over there. So why are local residents demanding more park?

At least David Lam Park is quite welcoming to local residents, with the absense of shady characters.. People play soccer and football there, or simply hang out throwing frisbee. In the summer, the area is greatly used for events such as the Jazz Fentival, etc.

I think that residents of the City Place neighbourhood believed when they bought their homes that a large park was imminent, when it was never imminent: it was always going to be built when Concord built out that final Northeast False Creek parcel. There is no shortage of parks in the vicinity of City Place: the full city block-sized park between Main and National in front of the Pacific Central train station, the park beside Science World, and the aforementioned Andy Livingston Park. Perhaps there could have been agitation over the years for the park in front of the Train Station to be reno'd and redesigned to make it function more like a David Lam Park, with a large open space suitable for playing soccer, concerts, etc. Perhaps part of why this has not occurred is because the park is frequently shadowed by... the City Place development.

With that all said, I think that a large soccer field-sized, David Lam Park-style 'great lawn' in the planned Creekside Park will be a boon for the neighbourhood and make this part of the city one of the most park and public amenity-rich areas in the city.

I support removing the viaducts and have little doubt that the surface street network and planned Georgia Street-Pacific Boulevard connector will be able to handle current and future traffic. I also don't buy the rhetorical argument that the enlarged surface street will be a comparable barrier between the neighbourhood and False Creek. I do agree that they City hasn't even tried to make use of the space beneath the viaducts, with the highly successful exception of skate park. Ultimately, I would prefer that the City put the removal plan on the books and then wait until the point when the next round of seismic upgrades/major mid-life maintenance to the viaducts would be required to pull the trigger on the project. I think it will still be a decade or so before Concord is ready to build Creekside Park, let alone be in a position where it is ready to start buying additional parcels freed up by the removal of the viaducts. In that time the value of the developable parcels created by the viaducts' removal will be greater and likely help offset the commensurate increase in the cost of the viaducts' removal and replacement with a street-level system. DCCs and CACs can also be collected in the mean-time prior to the viaducts' removal to further reduce or eliminate the need for deficit financing of the project.

Ultimately, the viaducts do not serve the purpose for which they were designed. There were supposed to connect to a freeway that was never built and they were designed to one-for-one replace the previous viaducts that spanned CPR railyards and industry, which also no longer exist. The viaducts carry vehicle volumes that could be conveyed using surface streets and considering the network effect of our road grid systems, a connected street-level replacement of the viaducts makes our transportation system more flexible and resilient to congestion.

I think that it is incumbent on those opposed to the viaducts removal to present a compelling, evidence-based argument that substantial additional road capacity will be required in the future as the city grows, because a compelling, evidence-based argument has been put forward that the number of vehicles entering the downtown core has declined over the last half century whilst population and jobs in the downtown peninsula have steadily risen. There is excess capacity on the eastern downtown surface street system and ongoing improvement to the capacity and efficiency of the transit system, plus pedestrian and cycling mobility improvements and the unrelenting increase in the number of people living downtown.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I agree, the viaducts are coming down unfortunately. The city will take a bath on this "vision".

When you make a political statement like that, one might think you have more of a political agenda than a what's best for the city agenda.

The City doesn't have to take a bath as you put it. The developments just one block away are very high density. Why not have similar densities on the cities viaduct land and maybe make a good profit? I bet that's what will happen.

[jlousa]

You bet that will happen? Is there going to be another infamous steak on the line?
There is no secret I am not a Vision supporter, but I have laid out my arguments on why I'm against the current plan and it's not because it's Visions idea. It's bad economics. I've posted my numbers, feel free to look back at them. If you are so confident the city will make money on the plan "as proposed" then I'll take your bet.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I agree, the viaducts are coming down unfortunately.

Ya know. Every time that I check into this thread (every few weeks over the years) I always read the same thing.

Over the past few years, I have repeatedly stated:

1. The Georgia viaduct is part of Translink's MRN;
2. Both the Georgia viaduct as well as the Dunsmuir viaduct are part of Translink's major truck routes;

Translink has NOT approved their removal. At all. Same with numerous other similar attempted muni removals across the region. So what gives with your conclusion?

[twoNeurons]

I think the city is trying to make the viaducts a foregone conclusion so the public will put pressure on Translink to remove the viaducts.

It may be in MRN, but it can be removed from the MRN as well. It just takes political will and public backing.

[officedweller]

Georgia and Dunsmuir viaduct removals spark debate
Almost 50 speakers signed up to give their opinions to Vancouver council

By John Mackie, Vancouver Sun October 22, 2015

...
One of the first speakers was Peter Webb, senior vice-president of development for Concord Pacific. Concord is a key player in the viaducts plan because it would build a new neighbourhood proposed in the plan.

Concord has been negotiating with the city for the past two years on a land swap Essentially the city would get some Concord property for new streets or parks, and Concord would get higher density for its towers.

But nothing has been set in stone, and Webb said it would probably take another year of negotiations to figure out who gets what. Rezoning might take another year, and then Concord could begin soil remediation on its sites, which are heavily polluted from False Creek’s industrial past.

The city said the density in Concord’s land is currently about 1.3 million sq. ft., although Webb notes that Concord has never agreed to that number. If the current staff plan goes through, the density would be increased to 2-2.5 million sq. ft., although Webb cautions that may not all go to Concord.

Webb said this could result in 10 to 12 towers, varying in height from 10 to 30 storeys. Concord is also proposing a commercial hub called Georgia Wharf, which could become “another version of Granville Island.”
...

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/G...bate/11457694/story.html?__lsa=e6ce-59e9