Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I'm nor sure it ever mattered who was in power provincially. The viaducts are coming down regardless.

Ding ding, winner. Nobody ever mentioned it provincially except idiot-boy Todd Stone, who quickly backtracked.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

There's a difference between trying to simply remove a road from the Major Road Network altogether vs. substitute one route for another, which is what Vancouver's plan is.

Nada. Delta previously requested both the MRN as well as MTR designation for Ladner Trunk Road (formerly Hwy 10) east of Hwy 17A. They were turned down.

Subsequently, Delta again petitioned Translink to remove said MRN/MTR section and it was granted due to the following:

1. Construction completion of SFPR in close proximity;

2. Addition of exit ramp from Hwy 99 to said Ladner Trunk road to Boundary bay Airport;

Again, superior alternative resulted in Translink removing the MTN/MTR designations for that section of Ladner Trunk Road.

Not so whatsoever with the Georgia/Dunsmuir viaducts:

"We would take 11 lanes of traffic and replace it with six."

http://journalofcommerce.com/Projects/Ne...on-viaduct-replacement-project-1021458W/

IOW, remove the current 5 twin viaduct lanes and just keep the current 6-lanes of Pacific Blvd - but just re-aligned.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I'm nor sure it ever mattered who was in power provincially. The viaducts are coming down regardless.

Sorry, but that's just political rhetoric coming out of Van City and obviously your own bias showing. Absolutely nothing to do with the real world. To wit:

1. Translink must prepare report on same satisfying the following:

- All Stakeholders - MoTI, BC Trucking Association, Port of Metro Vancouver, PAVCO et al inclusive of all regional Metro Van municipalities must support removal;

2. 2 public opinion polls (Justasen/Insights) show clear opposition to removal of viaducts;

3) $200 million+ cost of demolition will likely require capital referendum at next municipal election in November 2018;

4) Mayor Robertson wants both feds and province to financially contribute to demolition. Tells me that Van City unable to do so on own resources. Good luck with that. Politically dead issue for feds/prov;

5) The former Van City director of transportation, until retirement 2008, concurs the viaducts should remain:

Ian Adam, former City of Vancouver senior manager who was once in charge of the transportation department, is questioning the need to demolish the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts.

“Anybody who thinks you can take down two major viaducts like that, which handles 60,000 people a day and a thousand heavy trucks a day — and not have some impact — they’ve got to be dreaming in Technicolor,” said Adam, who once held the position of what is now called director of transportation. “I would say leave them up. They’re a $100-million asset that’s doing a job.”

https://www.biv.com/article/2015/8/retired-vancouver-director-transportation-question/

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Again, superior alternative resulted in Translink removing the MTN/MTR designations for that section of Ladner Trunk Road.

Not so whatsoever with the Georgia/Dunsmuir viaducts...

The claim of "11 lanes of traffic" for the viaducts pretty much destroys the whole credibility of that piece, IMHO.

And I note that Vancouver has already successfully reduced the capacity of the viaducts by designating one of the lanes for bicycles. Translink didn't seem to balk at that...

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Translink didn't seem to balk at that...

that's because only the Georgia Viaduct is in the MRN/MTN. Dunsmuir is not so is at the whim of the city. if TransLink were to say no, CoV could still take down Dunsmuir but not Georgia. and the odds of them taking down 1 without the other; unlikely.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

that's because only the Georgia Viaduct is in the MRN/MTN. Dunsmuir is not so is at the whim of the city.

I'm not talking about Dunsmuir, I'm talking about the westbound viaduct, where one lane was repurposed for bicycles. Translink didn't seem to have a problem with that. So as long as equivalent capacity (which is now two downtown-bound lanes) is provided, it's not obvious to me why they wouldn't go along with it.
And heck, the precedent of the bicycle lane already shows that they could potentially go along with reduced capacity.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The claim of "11 lanes of traffic" for the viaducts pretty much destroys the whole credibility of that piece, IMHO.

That's quoted from none other than Devan Fitch, City of Vancouver manager of project delivery and engineering services. IOW, he stated that the current 11 lanes of traffic (5 viaduct/6 Pacific Blvd) will be replaced by just the 6 current/ reconfigured Pacific Blvd lanes.

By all Translink precedents, that's an "inferior" replacement, which would not be eligible.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

that's because only the Georgia Viaduct is in the MRN/MTN. Dunsmuir is not so is at the whim of the city. if TransLink were to say no, CoV could still take down Dunsmuir but not Georgia. and the odds of them taking down 1 without the other; unlikely.

Correction. Georgia Viaduct is MRN to Main Street. Both Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts are part of MTR.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I'm not talking about Dunsmuir, I'm talking about the westbound viaduct, where one lane was repurposed for bicycles. Translink didn't seem to have a problem with that. So as long as equivalent capacity (which is now two downtown-bound lanes) is provided, it's not obvious to me why they wouldn't go along with it.
And heck, the precedent of the bicycle lane already shows that they could potentially go along with reduced capacity.

Maybe that's why the westbound viaduct is always jammed up during rush hours, or when there are events at the stadiums these day? I don't seem to remember that being the case before the bike lane installation. Removing the viaducts would make that way worse when all the traffic is now channeled to the streets below, not to mention that more residents need to deal with it literally in front of their residences.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Maybe that's why the westbound viaduct is always jammed up during rush hours, or when there are events at the stadiums these day? I don't seem to remember that being the case before the bike lane installation. Removing the viaducts would make that way worse when all the traffic is now channeled to the streets below, not to mention that more residents need to deal with it literally in front of their residences.

The viaducts are backed up because of the traffic lights at Beatty and Citadel.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The viaducts are backed up because of the traffic lights at Beatty and Citadel.

Maybe so, but if one more lane is opened for regular traffic, it would be 33% more capacity for the viaduct, meaning the backup would be a third (or more) shorter and for congestion time reduced.

Currently there is only one through/left turn traffic lane and one for right turn. If there are at least 2 lanes for traffic to go straight through, I'm sure the clogging would be lessened.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2786817,-...Lva-K_DBp2NVnyFyi_AHg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Vin

Maybe so, but if one more lane is opened for regular traffic, it would be 33% more capacity for the viaduct, meaning the backup would be a third (or more) shorter and for congestion time reduced.

The choke points are at the ends of the viaduct, not at the viaduct itself. There are the equivalent of 4 lanes of traffic leading on to the westbound viaduct (2 lanes on Prior and 2 left turn lanes from Main Street), but those lanes have traffic lights and traffic is blocked from proceeding on them for approximately 50% of the time (less so on Prior and more so on Main). So the maximum amount of traffic that can flow onto the viaducts is approximately 2 lanes' worth, give or take a bit.

3 lanes might bring a tad more capacity, but it's not going to be anywhere near the 50% more you'd expect from just the lane count alone.

[Vin]

Opinion: Vancouver viaducts demolition to be the worst transportation policy in city's history


http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/opinion-v...t-transportation-policy-in-citys-history


Totally agree with this.
Should look at the poll at the end of the article too.

[retro_orange]

because there's so much legitimacy from the source...

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

Opinion: Vancouver viaducts demolition to be the worst transportation policy in city's history


http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/opinion-v...t-transportation-policy-in-citys-history


Totally agree with this.
Should look at the poll at the end of the article too.

Wow! 63% want to keep them. I thought it would be rather different, with a majority wanting them down. But no! Good! Maybe Vancouver will still be a city and not Cutsieville-By-The-Sea.

[MIPS]

With Robertson around I can assure you the viaducts are going weather the public want it or not. He has far too much money stuffed in his pants by investors.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by MIPS

With Robertson around I can assure you the viaducts are going weather the public want it or not. He has far too much money stuffed in his pants by investors.

If that really is what's going to be, I might suggest getting a design ready for a central tunnel, as sort of
'Hyde Park Underpass' type thing to take through traffic past all the intersections around Georgia St.
Here in Vancouver, people will never go for it, I know. Too bad, really.

[s211]

Originally Posted by MIPS

With Robertson around I can assure you the viaducts are going weather the public want it or not. He has far too much money stuffed in his pants by the Sierra Club.

Fixed that for ya.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by s211

Fixed that for ya.

I highly doubt that the Sierra Club would want to be involved with the emissions resulting from near-gridlock.

[jollyburger]

Updated timeframe from the city:

VANCOUVER (NEWS 1130) – It seems movie studios still have a few years to use Vancouver’s viaducts as a set background and drivers can still use the flyover-like overpass for a while.

We’re getting a better idea of where the City is with plans to remove spans over Georgia and Dunsmuir.

“We’ve done a full seismic assessment now of the viaducts and do not recommend maintaining them,” explains City Engineer Jerry Dobrovolny. “They will need to come down regardless now because of the seismic condition of the structures.”


The idea is expected to come back to council next year, but Dobrovolny says it could be a couple of years.

“We’ll come back early in the New Year to council to get direction, and work can start within a year or so after that.”

Dobrovolny adds as many as 12,000 people are expected to call the area home over the next 20 years, while another 8,000 will be working there.

Removal of the viaducts is part of a master plan by the City to remodel a portion of False Creek. The Northeast False Creek project includes plans for an 11-acre park, among other features.

http://www.news1130.com/2017/10/22/vancouver-viaduct-removal/

Old report:

The structures meet the design
and loading standards at the time of construction, but do not meet current seismic design
standards. Having said that, and due to the nature of the structural system (girders built into
pier caps), the structure should perform relatively well in an earthquake.

With a ~$5 million to do seismic upgrading.

http://vancouver.ca/docs/eastern-core/viaducts-study-summary.pdf

[Vin]

There you go, the viaducts are actually designed very well to withstand seismic actions. Only 5mil to retrofit it to meet today's seismic standards is a real steal, compared to like 200mil to remove them, together with a host of negative impacts associated with that.

Now, of course they need to change the tune since it has already been decided that they are coming down. I call this propaganda.