Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

No idea - maybe they'll set up another barrier wall? Point is, the contimination isn't limited to just Andy Livingstone.

Judging by the lines, I'm guessing the old streetcar plan included the viaduct removal.

EDIT: On further review - thanks Alex - the NPA streetcar is cutting across the Milross-National blocks (undeveloped back then); since that's off the table now, getting to Station Street means weaving through Quebec and Main via National, or just continuing down Quebec to 2nd/GNW (made redundant by the 23 and 84). And we can forget about getting to Prior from Pacific, which would likely be the goal of a new downtown route.
Like it or not, it's easier to make transit work without the viaducts than with them.

The thing is, those are pretty much the most speculative/later phases of the streetcar that could be affected negatively. Plus, we can get to Union (one block north of Prior- still close enough to connect to St. Paul's) by weaving under the Viaducts from the spaces between the north Main St. connector and the main Dunsmuir viaduct. The only problem is that Union is a neighborhood road, and may not accept a streetcar destroying their precious street parking spaces.

Plus, the existing viaduct plans don't even set aside ANY space for a streetcar to Prior or Union- whereas the viaducts have small amounts of dead room a streetcar can weave around to get to Strathcona. The existing plans fill in all the 'dead space'- which is both good and bad.

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yup. I think Andy Livingstone just has the contaminated soil from International Village.
The areas for the new parks have not yet been excavated - that's why the park can't be built before the redevelopment, because the contaminated soil from the new redevelopment will go under the new park. The new park is located where it is because that's the most contaminated areas (area around the gasometer (coal burner to generate electricity)), so it can't really be excavated for development.

I guess they can put the contaminated soil at the new Larwill Park, though it'd be more disruptive and costly for obvious reasons (more soil has to be moved a longer distance though busy downtown streets)

I'd say it would be worth it (to 'show off' the building) no matter what happens to the viaducts- IF the new VAG actually looked good. Unfortunately, either CoV has a horrible taste in architecture, or the architects were slacking off. Disappointing from the creators of the Bird's Nest.

Originally Posted by Vin

They just need to build a sea-level control dam at the mouth of Falsecreek near Vanier Park, similarly to what London had done on their Thames. Sunset Beach all the way to English Bay, as well as Vanier Park all the way to Kitsilano Beach, will be surrounded by dikes like in Richmond. This will keep the rising sea away from Falsecreek and the flats. The rest of Vancouver is relatively high and should be OK, except for The East Fraserlands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Barrier

Funny you'd say that, because I was about to post this: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/false-creek-storm-surge-barrier

As low-lying areas by the water are prone to flooding from rising sea levels, the City of Vancouver is considering a number of options to protect vulnerable areas and this includes a storm surge barrier, or a sea gate, to protect False Creek and the False Creek Flats – an area stretching all the way to Clark Drive.

Yesterday, a proposal presented to City Council by City staff included an option construct a sea gate under the Burrard Street Bridge. The 10-metre-tall, 360-metre-wide gate at the mouth of False Creek could be closed for three to four days a year, increasing over time as water levels rise.

A storm surge barrier would be built under the Burrard Street Bridge:


While a sea gate would protect billions of dollars worth of property and infrastructure in the inner harbour, it has an estimated construction cost of between $500 million and $800 million and an annual maintenance cost of $9.5 million.

Sea level rise could cause widespread flooding in the False Creek area.

Other options to protect False Creek include raising the seawall over an 8.6-kilometre-long stretch by an average height of 2.3 metres. This will cost between $300 million and $400 million to build and $4 million annually to maintain.

Another alternative to ‘adapt’ would, for example, consists of constructing deployable flood shields and temporary stairs in city streets, remodelling ground floor windows to be flood proof, and converting any residential space on the ground level into commercial. Entrances into building could even have their own flood gate.

The adaptation option has an estimated construction cost of $338 million and an annual maintenance cost of $500,000.

“Based on today’s projections of sea level rise, we have timelines of when we need to start prioritizing different areas and incorporating that lag time into construction time an decision making,” Senior Sustainability Specialist Tamsin Mills told Council. “When the nuisance flooding becomes intolerable and the fine line, we tip over to wanting that piece of infrastructure.”

Measures to protect other low-lying areas in the city will cost considerably less.

For example, a shoreline dike on the Fraser River from the Arthur Laing Bridge to River District could cost $160 million and a dike for Kitsilano Beach and Vanier Park could cost up to $5 million.

Further west along Jericho Beach and Locarno Beach, which is currently protected by a wall of sandbags during high king tides, a park dike is pegged at between $10 million and $24 million.

However, the need for such flood-preventative infrastructure investments is not expected for decades. Officials estimate sea levels will rise by one metre by the end of the century and two metres by 2200.

A study released earlier this year by the Fraser Basin Council stated a major flood from a surge in fresh water river waters in the Fraser River could cost up to nearly $33 billion while a coastal flood could cost $24.7 million.

In March, the provincial government announced that it would provide Richmond with $16.6 million towards the costs of a $25-million flood mitigation project involving rebuilding four pump stations and raising the height of a two-kilometre-long dike fronting the river.

Raising the False Creek seawall would be $400M cheaper, which basically kills any 'storm barrier' idea.

I think the storm barrier could work well on the Fraser or Burrard Inlet, though. A lot more shoreline to protect turns to cost-benefit ratio closer to a floodgate (in theory). It would have to be more a regional thing.

Also, their cost estimates/plans don't protect the Southlands. Do they just think the Musqueam are going to foot the cost to protect their shoreline, so they didn't bother?

Also, off topic, but rising sea levels might also deepen the banks. So all our efforts to protect them are for naught because of eventual climate-related erosion and flooding?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Iona treats most of Vancouver, the cutoff is roughly where Still Creek's watershed beings.

Metro Vancouver is investing a lot in their treatment at the moment. Lions Gate is getting replaced. Annacis is getting a fairly hefty expansion and seismic upgrade. Iona should be getting secondary treatment after that.

Thanks!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Raising the False Creek seawall would be $400M cheaper, which basically kills any 'storm barrier' idea.

I think the storm barrier could work well on the Fraser or Burrard Inlet, though. A lot more shoreline to protect turns to cost-benefit ratio closer to a floodgate (in theory). It would have to be more a regional thing.

Beat me to it. Yeah, any False Creek Floodgate will have to wait a decade or three. The Fraser makes sense too, but Burrard Inlet's a blue water channel - that'd be one hell of a deep barrier.

Originally Posted by fredinno

The thing is, those are pretty much the most speculative/later phases of the streetcar that could be affected negatively. Plus, we can get to Union (one block north of Prior- still close enough to connect to St. Paul's) by weaving under the Viaducts from the spaces between the north Main St. connector and the main Dunsmuir viaduct. The only problem is that Union is a neighborhood road, and may not accept a streetcar destroying their precious street parking spaces.

Plus, the existing viaduct plans don't even set aside ANY space for a streetcar to Prior or Union- whereas the viaducts have small amounts of dead room a streetcar can weave around to get to Strathcona. The existing plans fill in all the 'dead space'- which is both good and bad.

Same engineering gymnastics required, though. Assuming a trolley wire could squeeze into that space under the 'ducts, Dunsmuir's earthen ramp is still in the way... and Union ends at Vernon, whereas Venables gets the route to Clark/Knight or further east. Kind of expensive for a simple trolley route.

Doesn't have to be a streetcar. Could be a bus, which definitely can't get to Union/Prior right now. Honestly, I'm liking that option more and more: the planning team wants the streetcar in mixed-traffic, and that'd be even dumber than a median.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Beat me to it. Yeah, any False Creek Floodgate will have to wait a decade or three. The Fraser makes sense too, but Burrard Inlet's a blue water channel - that'd be one hell of a deep barrier.



Same engineering gymnastics required, though. Assuming a trolley wire could squeeze into that space under the 'ducts, Dunsmuir's earthen ramp is still in the way... and Union ends at Vernon, whereas Venables gets the route to Clark/Knight or further east. Kind of expensive for a simple trolley route.

Doesn't have to be a streetcar. Could be a bus, which definitely can't get to Union/Prior right now. Honestly, I'm liking that option more and more: the planning team wants the streetcar in mixed-traffic, and that'd be even dumber than a median.

I guess. I don't really think building a storm barrier is better if it's more expensive than raising the dikes.

A Fraser River Barrier might be paired with a banks barrier, to reduce erosion on the banks from higher sea levels.

Looking at this, it seems any deepwater port in Port Moody is unviable due to low depths there.


Yeah, but there's not even space on Prior/Venables anyways without operating in mixed traffic or reducing it to 2 lanes. It's extreme long-term anyways, we don't even have the base streetcar network on any of the books anyways, not to mention Union can divert to Andenac, which extends all the way to Burnaby (the corridor on Vernon is actually a blocked-off bike path, so it's not blocking any more traffic than is already being blocked).

If you're talking about making use of the land under and around the viaducts, you need to deal with the earthen ramps on the viaducts anyways- especially on the Hogan's Alley end.

Honestly, what matters right now is that we have the corridors reserved, not so much cost.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Yeah, but there's not even space on Prior/Venables anyways without operating in mixed traffic or reducing it to 2 lanes. It's extreme long-term anyways, we don't even have the base streetcar network on any of the books anyways, not to mention Union can divert to Andenac, which extends all the way to Burnaby (the corridor on Vernon is actually a blocked-off bike path, so it's not blocking any more traffic than is already being blocked).

If you're talking about making use of the land under and around the viaducts, you need to deal with the earthen ramps on the viaducts anyways- especially on the Hogan's Alley end.

Honestly, what matters right now is that we have the corridors reserved, not so much cost.

Adanac's part of the bike network though; either a streetcar'd have to operate in mixed traffic anyway, or the bikes are going on the sidewalk . If we're going with a train option over a bus option, a Prior route (built in tandem with the Malkin/National connector) isn't any worse.

I think we've lost each other again. If you're trying to get onto Union from Main, that's still hard: that block is only 3 lanes and a bike lane wide.

Agreed, but there's no corridor anyway. At least a six-lane road gives a bit more room to work with.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Iona treats most of Vancouver, the cutoff is roughly where Still Creek's watershed beings.

Metro Vancouver is investing a lot in their treatment at the moment. Lions Gate is getting replaced. Annacis is getting a fairly hefty expansion and seismic upgrade.
Iona should be getting secondary treatment after that.

For a city that calls itself "the greenest city" on earth, to be so slow in addressing the sewage treatment issue - only now contemplating secondary treatment - - - -
it really surprises and disappoints me. Seattle has had, I believe, tertiary treatment for a number of years.
Off-topic, please excuse me. Back to the Viaduts realm.

[Alex Mackinnon]

https://www.richmond-news.com/news/iona-...upgrade-pegged-at-1-9-billion-1.23572637

They're big bucks, and seldom does someone call and complain about their sewage not being processed enough.

Metro Vancouver is a separate entity from the City of Vancouver though.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Adanac's part of the bike network though; either a streetcar'd have to operate in mixed traffic anyway, or the bikes are going on the sidewalk . If we're going with a train option over a bus option, a Prior route (built in tandem with the Malkin/National connector) isn't any worse.

I think we've lost each other again. If you're trying to get onto Union from Main, that's still hard: that block is only 3 lanes and a bike lane wide.

Agreed, but there's no corridor anyway. At least a six-lane road gives a bit more room to work with.

True, but Bike lanes aren't exactly that wide, and the grid system gives us quite a few lanes to move the bike lanes up or down one block. But I see your point.

There's the Hogan's Alley empty space the COV could steal a lane's worth of land off of.

I was assuming the arterial would stay Prior. Putting Malkin on the table changes the considerations enormously, which I ignored because the precise details for the Malkin option haven't been made yet.

Note that's the biggest reason I didn't even want to consider putting the streetcar on Malkin either, since it depends on a lot of details we don't really have yet.


Really, that's my primary point. The 6-lane road option has no excess capacity to burn off- in fact, the roads in the area are pretty much all being narrowed (or removed in the case of Carrall St. and the viaducts) to provide more land to develop in order to justify taking the viaducts down in the first place. All of this removes space for cars- but also parallel routes for streetcars and bikes.

Accounting for street parking, the roads on the surface level are 1 lane wider than the planned 6-lane connector- note that this excludes bike lane facilities- which can, and should be moved off Pacific Blvd.

There is about as much 'reserve' for streetcar on the NEFC plan as there is for LRT on the Port Mann. Theoretically- yes: in practice, no.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

True, but Bike lanes aren't exactly that wide, and the grid system gives us quite a few lanes to move the bike lanes up or down one block. But I see your point.

There's the Hogan's Alley empty space the COV could steal a lane's worth of land off of.

I was assuming the arterial would stay Prior. Putting Malkin on the table changes the considerations enormously, which I ignored because the precise details for the Malkin option haven't been made yet.

Note that's the biggest reason I didn't even want to consider putting the streetcar on Malkin either, since it depends on a lot of details we don't really have yet.

The Hogan's Alley space that'll be cleared when the viaducts come down? Or the space between Union and Dunsmuir that's currently modular housing? Whatever wiggle room there was before, it's gone now.

Yeah, I get that trains + busy arterials = massive headache. Problem is that the side streets there aren't much good either.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Really, that's my primary point. The 6-lane road option has no excess capacity to burn off- in fact, the roads in the area are pretty much all being narrowed (or removed in the case of Carrall St. and the viaducts) to provide more land to develop in order to justify taking the viaducts down in the first place. All of this removes space for cars- but also parallel routes for streetcars and bikes.

Accounting for street parking, the roads on the surface level are 1 lane wider than the planned 6-lane connector- note that this excludes bike lane facilities- which can, and should be moved off Pacific Blvd.

There is about as much 'reserve' for streetcar on the NEFC plan as there is for LRT on the Port Mann. Theoretically- yes: in practice, no.

You're definitely not wrong. Again, a bus might work better.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

For a city that calls itself "the greenest city" on earth, to be so slow in addressing the sewage treatment issue - only now contemplating secondary treatment - - - -
it really surprises and disappoints me. Seattle has had, I believe, tertiary treatment for a number of years.
Off-topic, please excuse me. Back to the Viaduts realm.

Vancouver hasn't been all that green, but a lot of green-washing: things built that the City wants others to see, but not necessarily fully functional. For instance, bike lanes without the supporting biking facilities like storage/shower etc, low density neighbourhoods everywhere outside downtown, as well as what is related to this thread: the tearing down of the viaducts. Demolishing big structures makes this city the most un-green place IMO.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The Hogan's Alley space that'll be cleared when the viaducts come down? Or the space between Union and Dunsmuir that's currently modular housing? Whatever wiggle room there was before, it's gone now.

Yeah, I get that trains + busy arterials = massive headache. Problem is that the side streets there aren't much good either.



You're definitely not wrong. Again, a bus might work better.

The latter. Note that it's considered 'temporary' modular housing, and as such, was intended to be demolished eventually. The half-block site could easily eventually hold a 12-13 story tower, which would be a massive net gain to the site, and help compensate for the losses in social housing from the gentrification of Chinatown.

I mean, I guess side streets have NIMBY problems and are less optimal for walking/accessing commercial districts. Any other major problems?

True, which is partially why I'm looking into biarticulated BRT if I can find the time to make a proper fantasy map, using primarily parking curb lanes.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The latter. Note that it's considered 'temporary' modular housing, and as such, was intended to be demolished eventually. The half-block site could easily eventually hold a 12-13 story tower, which would be a massive net gain to the site, and help compensate for the losses in social housing from the gentrification of Chinatown.

I mean, I guess side streets have NIMBY problems and are less optimal for walking/accessing commercial districts. Any other major problems?

True, which is partially why I'm looking into biarticulated BRT if I can find the time to make a proper fantasy map, using primarily parking curb lanes.

Same problems - either you take out the sidewalk and the eastbound lane, or you skip the tower and get creative with the Dunsmuir's earthworks.

Well yeah, if Union was a straight shot, I'd say close the whole thing off and make it a tram/bikeway. But it isn't.

Sounds good. Looking forward to it.

[Vin]

Word is that the Nimby clueless panel chose the most expensive route: get ready to see half a billion to be spent. Looking forward to the cost topping a billion.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Word is that the Nimby clueless panel chose the most expensive route: get ready to see half a billion to be spent. Looking forward to the cost topping a billion.

Did you just notice? There was a long discussion about the panel's recommendation, and what is wrong with it, on the appropriate thread. This is ťhe wrong thread because the Malkin (or Prior, or wherever) route has nothing to do with removing the viaducts. It's needed because the use of the train tracks has increased, and will be even busier once the double track goes ìn, ànd Pŕior is a residential street in a residential area. A plan is needed for a new bridge, and possibly a different route, even if the viaducts were retained.

[WarrenC12]

Also, the hospital.

Anybody know when this is going to council?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Did you just notice? There was a long discussion about the panel's recommendation, and what is wrong with it, on the appropriate thread. This is ťhe wrong thread because the Malkin (or Prior, or wherever) route has nothing to do with removing the viaducts. It's needed because the use of the train tracks has increased, and will be even busier once the double track goes ìn, ànd Pŕior is a residential street in a residential area. A plan is needed for a new bridge, and possibly a different route, even if the viaducts were retained.

What is wrong with it? $500million. That's what's wrong.

Remember that under $100mil when it was first mooted? Nothing but lies.


This has everything to do with the viaduct removal. If the viaducts were never meant to be removed, the previous Vision government would not have made that stupid promise to the Strathcona folks to convert Prior Street to a quiet residential street. We would still be using Prior street, and that would cost so much less. Not all the 500mil is for the bridge mind you, but for a long stretch of new road at Malkin, not to mention buying up private property and relocating fire fighting training facilities, etc.: all that to pacify Vision's warped vision of viaduct removal.

[GenWhy?]

Prior Street is still a possibility.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

What is wrong with it? $500million. That's what's wrong.

Remember that under $100mil when it was first mooted? Nothing but lies.


This has everything to do with the viaduct removal. If the viaducts were never meant to be removed, the previous Vision government would not have made that stupid promise to the Strathcona folks to convert Prior Street to a quiet residential street. We would still be using Prior street, and that would cost so much less. Not all the 500mil is for the bridge mind you, but for a long stretch of new road at Malkin, not to mention buying up private property and relocating fire fighting training facilities, etc.: all that to pacify Vision's warped vision of viaduct removal.

You're rewriting history to suit your opinion. The need to replace Prior has been known for many years, and in policy since the The False Creek Flats Rail Corridor Strategy was started in 2007 (before Vision Vancouver even existed) and adopted in 2012 - before the Viaduct demolition discussion took place.

The Engineers always favoured Malkin as an alternate route - which would/might still cost only $100m to build, but it wouldn't allow the existing food distribution businesses to stay operating, and they mounted a very strong lobbying exercise to stay where they are, and operate as they do today. That's why other options were looked at - and the chosen option (which as I noted has a lot wrong with it), which was discussed on the appropriate thread) was added by the panel that were selected to try to offer a solution.

Nothing has been decided yet, and nobody has lied about anything. Prior could still be the choice (although a difficult one as there's a big new Chinese senior's tower very close to the tracks), and so could Malkin. What won't change is more disruptive train activity in future.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You're rewriting history to suit your opinion. The need to replace Prior has been known for many years, and in policy since the The False Creek Flats Rail Corridor Strategy was started in 2007 (before Vision Vancouver even existed) and adopted in 2012 - before the Viaduct demolition discussion took place.

The Engineers always favoured Malkin as an alternate route - which would/might still cost only $100m to build, but it wouldn't allow the existing food distribution businesses to stay operating, and they mounted a very strong lobbying exercise to stay where they are, and operate as they do today. That's why other options were looked at - and the chosen option (which as I noted has a lot wrong with it), which was discussed on the appropriate thread) was added by the panel that were selected to try to offer a solution.

Nothing has been decided yet, and nobody has lied about anything. Prior could still be the choice (although a difficult one as there's a big new Chinese senior's tower very close to the tracks), and so could Malkin. What won't change is more disruptive train activity in future.

Here's what history says right here:


Mayor Gregor Robertson, July 24, 2012:
https://strathcona-residents.org/viaducts/mayor-comments-july24

"This is a big big decision for Vancouver and the future of the Eastern Core and the Viaducts is obviously huge for our city's future. It will have big influence how we connect and we respond to the needs of of neighborhoods like Chinatown, Strathcona, Grandview-Woodlands for many decades to come and as such it's a key decision that still has outstanding issues that need to be addressed before I'm prepared to move forward.

The litmus test for me is whether the changes here will benefit the citizens who live and work in the area and better connect the City as a whole. We have historic neighborhoods here directly impacted by the viaducts and the lack of connectivity through the Eastern Core, and that contrasted with an opportunity for more park space, more affordable housing, more vibrant connected streets - but I think the way that we do this is really critical.

I've just outlined five clear pieces that I'd like to see come back to council in the fall for our consideration.

The first of those is the residents along Prior Street have made a very compelling case in addressing their longstanding concerns about traffic and I believe that some immediate improvements are warranted, reinstating the parking being one of them, looking at traffic calming options like speedbumps is another, but I think that addressing that is overdue and certainly that needs to be addressed with the decisions going forward but those immediate changes I think can start to happen.

The second piece is that we need to pursue the Malkin Street connection. It's been in the background for years and it's time to act on it and I think there's an opportunity with the viaducts and the Eastern Core plan to fasttrack the Malkin Street connection, to look at the federal infrastructure funding that's coming down the road so to speak and make sure that that becomes a top priority as part of this initiative."

[Vin]

With the viaducts intact, Prior street can be upgraded and it would cost a dime compared to re-doing Malkin. Also, at the train crossing, the tracks (yes, even double-tracks) can essentially go below grade in a trench/cut and emerge at the storage yard. Prior and Venables can stay on grade.