Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by 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 their 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.

Dobrovolný is simply full of — and a lier. I wonder how people like him sleep at night considering he is not a politician but acts like one. Too bad he didn't just stay in New Westminster but as we can see he is in sync with the current council and helps push their agendas with complete disregard for his profession and ethics. People should be pissed that a professional can be so un professional.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Dobrovolný is simply full of — and a lier. I wonder how people like him sleep at night considering he is not a politician but acts like one. Too bad he didn't just stay in New Westminster but as we can see he is in sync with the current council and helps push their agendas with complete disregard for his profession and ethics. People should be pissed that a professional can be so un professional.

May I second that? IMO you're right.

Anyone else?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by 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...

It's not clear from the report, but I strongly doubt that the $5M quoted for seismic upgrades would bring them up to current standards.

However I also don't buy the seismic risk as being a significant reason to tear them down. If that were true many other bridges in our region would have been torn down long ago.

[MIPS]

Call me paranoid, but....

I still think it's collusion within city hall/interference by foreign parties.
Even if that estimate was off by $15 million that's still far below the removal estimate. There's clearly something going on. Somebody wants that land and we know it's easily worth tens of millions.

[djmk]

Per this article:
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/10/vancouver-viaducts-demolition-worst-transportation-policy/

"The City now says the maintenance cost for a large elevated concrete structure like the viaducts is between five to ten times the cost of the same roadway built on the ground. According to its recent reports, the cost to maintain the viaducts has increased to $8 million to $10 million over the next 10 to 15 years – plus a one-time capital investment of between $50 million and $65 million to upgrade the viaducts to withstand a moderate seismic event."

[Migrant_Coconut]

I still don't get it. Viaducts unsafe? Tear down the viaducts!

Massey Tunnel unsafe? Uh... keep the tunnel and fix it! And build another one!

[stump]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I still don't get it. Viaducts unsafe? Tear down the viaducts!

Massey Tunnel unsafe? Uh... keep the tunnel and fix it! And build another one!

Meh, if it ever collapses, people can just use the Alex Fraser or a rowboat. No big deal.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by stump

Meh, if it ever collapses, people can just use the Alex Fraser or a rowboat. No big deal.

Yeah let's force everyone to use a single crossing and go the long way around.

[rickvug]

I'm all for the NEFC plan, including ripping down the viaducts. This isn't about seismic safety. This is about city building. I wish the city would stop talking about seismic upgrade costs as the justification. Talk about what's the best use for the land and what this big move will do for the city. The viaducts don't justify themselves given the value of the land and the fact that they aren't connected to the freeways. It is as simple as that. A bit more congestion will be a small price to pay for a world class waterfront park, a new entertainment zone, a better integrated Main Street, and the general eastward growth of the downtown core. None of this would be cohesive or economical if the viaducts weren't removed.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Yeah let's force everyone to use a single crossing and go the long way around.

Sarcasm, dude.

Originally Posted by rickvug

I'm all for the NEFC plan, including ripping down the viaducts. This isn't about seismic safety. This is about city building. I wish the city would stop talking about seismic upgrade costs as the justification. Talk about what's the best use for the land and what this big move will do for the city. The viaducts don't justify themselves given the value of the land and the fact that they aren't connected to the freeways. It is as simple as that. A bit more congestion will be a small price to pay for a world class waterfront park, a new entertainment zone, a better integrated Main Street, and the general eastward growth of the downtown core. None of this would be cohesive or economical if the viaducts weren't removed.

The problem is that the City is A) replacing a freeway with an arterial + cross-traffic, B) insisting on as many at-grade crossings as possible for the sake of "street interaction" and C) providing no rapid transit to compensate. I support the redevelopment too (now that it's more than just condos and lawns), but I don't think City Hall's done all the homework.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Dobrovolný is simply full of — and a lier. I wonder how people like him sleep at night considering he is not a politician but acts like one. Too bad he didn't just stay in New Westminster but as we can see he is in sync with the current council and helps push their agendas with complete disregard for his profession and ethics. People should be pissed that a professional can be so un professional.

He actually was a politician in New West years ago. He has been head propaganda minister in Vancouver for quite a while now, but nobody in the media ever calls him on his —. He is a frequent offender to the Vancouver "lets build a case for something so we can pass our social engineering initiatives later in a council vote" way of doing things.

A classic example of his lies/exaggerations was earlier this year when he was interviewed by someone who went on a bike ride home with him when he claimed he could get home (in New West) from Vancouver city Hall in 15 min when actually it took them close to an hour.

This latest viaducts rant is nothing new and fits with his M.O. to a "T".
They started this a while back by making them as unpleasant to drive then when people starting to avoid them due to almost constant traffic snarls, they trot out the numbers "barley anyone takes the viaducts anyway" narrative. This earthquake one is even worse. The city stopped maintaining the structures years ago, and surprise surprise these issues magically pop up right around the time the plans for their demolition come out.

This is classic Uncle Jerry/COV —

[rickvug]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sarcasm, dude.

The problem is that the City is A) replacing a freeway with an arterial + cross-traffic, B) insisting on as many at-grade crossings as possible for the sake of "street interaction" and C) providing no rapid transit to compensate. I support the redevelopment too (now that it's more than just condos and lawns), but I don't think City Hall's done all the homework.

I hope that planning a streetcar network for downtown Vancouver comes back sooner rather than later (ie. once Broadway is 100% funded and green lit). That is the missing piece that can make viaducts removal work really well. Same goes for the pedestrianization of Water Street work. Mobility pricing too. We're going to witness a continued shift away from commuting into the downtown core, especially with Skytrain expansion and the loss of existing parking lots to new developments. A viaduct free Vancouver aligns with this direction.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The problem is that the City is A) replacing a freeway with an arterial + cross-traffic, B) insisting on as many at-grade crossings as possible for the sake of "street interaction" and C) providing no rapid transit to compensate. I support the redevelopment too (now that it's more than just condos and lawns), but I don't think City Hall's done all the homework.

What sort of rapid transit do you feel they should supply? There's already a SkyTrain right there.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

He actually was a politician in New West years ago. He has been head propaganda minister in Vancouver for quite a while now, but nobody in the media ever calls him on his —. He is a frequent offender to the Vancouver "lets build a case for something so we can pass our social engineering initiatives later in a council vote" way of doing things.

A classic example of his lies/exaggerations was earlier this year when he was interviewed by someone who went on a bike ride home with him when he claimed he could get home (in New West) from Vancouver city Hall in 15 min when actually it took them close to an hour.

This latest viaducts rant is nothing new and fits with his M.O. to a "T".
They started this a while back by making them as unpleasant to drive then when people starting to avoid them due to almost constant traffic snarls, they trot out the numbers "barley anyone takes the viaducts anyway" narrative. This earthquake one is even worse. The city stopped maintaining the structures years ago, and surprise surprise these issues magically pop up right around the time the plans for their demolition come out.

This is classic Uncle Jerry/COV —

I vote for the NPA in large part knowing that Dobrovolny will likely get the boot once they have a majority on council, even if the viaducts still come down!

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by rickvug

I hope that planning a streetcar network for downtown Vancouver comes back sooner rather than later (ie. once Broadway is 100% funded and green lit).

Oh yeah, that's what we really need - an at grade transit system in the densest mixed traffic of the region that blocks and is blocked by other vehicles and can't go around obstructions.

[casper]

It a fairly significant drop from West Georgia down to the level where Expo Blvard is.

What would have been cool is to create an underground street network that serves the two stadiums, Costco and other buildings in the area. Similar to what exists for around the convention centre. You could then build a much more pedestrian friendly street environment above all of that and gradually slope that down similar to the existing viaducts.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by casper

It a fairly significant drop from West Georgia down to the level where Expo Blvard is.

What would have been cool is to create an underground street network that serves the two stadiums, Costco and other buildings in the area. Similar to what exists for around the convention centre. You could then build a much more pedestrian friendly street environment above all of that and gradually slope that down similar to the existing viaducts.

Oh — yeah. An underground city would be awesome.

[jollyburger]

Their other theory is that the viaducts in an earthquake would drop onto the Skytrain because of unstable soil conditions.

How much better are the foundations of the guideway in the area. Likelihood they studied that before coming up with this "theory"... Zero?

https://www.pressreader.com/canada/metro-canada-vancouver/20150721/281702613405007

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Updated timeframe from the city:

“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.”

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

Old report:

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

what i want to know is why, from 2011 of the old report, to 2017 now, the viaducts are in such risk? either the independent review are a bunch of liars and terrible at their job, or Jerry's review is biased. hmmm i wonder... who. to trust.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I still don't get it. Viaducts unsafe? Tear down the viaducts!

Massey Tunnel unsafe? Uh... keep the tunnel and fix it! And build another one!

lol