Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Feathered Friend]

The plan is still for the Viaducts to come down, but nothing will happen to them until the improvements to the Granville Street Bridge are completed. That work will likely take until 2022, which is just in time for a new civic election.

[logan5]

I was speaking from the perspective of Vin, who loves towers. Towers are not “rad”. Lol.

[Tetsuo]

Originally Posted by logan5

I was speaking from the perspective of Vin, who loves towers. Towers are not “rad”. Lol.

Malls are

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

I was speaking from the perspective of Vin, who loves towers. Towers are not “rad”. Lol.

With the investment climate now, good luck in your rad towers paying for the viaducts to come down. Like Leftcoaster said, constriants in height by the City isn't helping either. Well, it's a like a dog trying to catch its short tail: this will keep spinning and spinning.

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

Malls are

Sadly no malls here too. They are taboo and will make many go insane in this city.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

...no malls here too. They are taboo and will make many go insane in this city.

You're finally starting to come around.

[Vin]

The City is choosing Prior/Venables as the major link road after all (most economical option). Looks like the CN tracks will also be raised on a bridge.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/prior-venables-false-creek-flats-arterial-road-september-2019

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Vin

Looks like the CN tracks will also be raised on a bridge.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/prior-venables-false-creek-flats-arterial-road-september-2019

No, the road is being sunk in a trench.

All paid for by the Port of Vancouver and CN in connection with the double tracking of the line from the Port to Nanaimo St. through the Grandview Cut.

That probably alleviates some financial pressure (for a new arterial road) tangentially related to the demolition of the viaducts.

[WarrenC12]

Great solution IMO, and it will create a cool train "bridge". I just hope the area doesn't become a DTES hangout. Oh, who am I kidding...

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

No, the road is being sunk in a trench.

All paid for by the Port of Vancouver and CN in connection with the double tracking of the line from the Port to Nanaimo St. through the Grandview Cut.

That probably alleviates some financial pressure (for a new arterial road) tangentially related to the demolition of the viaducts.

I know that about the sunken road, but you should look at the railway crossing a bit closer. See that it isn't on grade with the surrounding buildings and ground.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

I know that about the sunken road, but you should look at the railway crossing a bit closer. See that it isn't on grade with the surrounding buildings and ground.

I'd be willing to bet they aren't going to introduce any type of grade to the train tracks around there.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'd be willing to bet they aren't going to introduce any type of grade to the train tracks around there.

So are you saying the rendering is wrong?

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's an article from 2012. Changing City says Malkin was the preferred option since 2007. Your argument is irrelevant.

As for the railway, it's owned by CN, which is definitely not going to spend money on a tunnel when it can make Vancouver foot the bill for its own traffic.

Originally Posted by Changing City

Do you have a source for the idea of 'redoing Prior Street' (whatever that would involve), and trenching the railway? Or are you just making things up? As others have noted, the rails aren't going anywhere, and I'm pretty certain somebody (and not the rail company) would have to buy a lot of expensive property and build an expensive trench in order to make that possible. There are sidings just by the Prior Crossing, so I doubt whether you could make a trench work anyway, The options considered so far are an underpass or a bridge like Powell Street. Either will be disruptive and probably involve buying land and demolishing buildings. That's why Malkin was the preferred option, until the disruption of the existing businesses became a major issue.

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.

This proves that you are so wrong, Changing City, just like many issues that you argue about. In the report it says construction alone for the Malkin option is in access of $400 mil: money that the City obviously does not have. Like I said before, the cheapest option has to be through Prior/Venables. Hey, I suggested doing a cut along the railway after hearing someone say the cut is impossible on Prior/Venables itself, but then the City decided to do a cut on the road regardless. Must have figured out how to do it. Final word: I don't make things up.

[Alex Mackinnon]

I'm pretty certain that most people in Strathcona will agree with me in stating that this is the worst option available. There is basically no net benefit to the neighbourhood, and this only solidifies Prior's use as a poorly implemented arterial.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I'm pretty certain that most people in Strathcona will agree with me in stating that this is the worst option available. There is basically no net benefit to the neighbourhood, and this only solidifies Prior's use as a poorly implemented arterial.

If only money grows on trees, then technically anything is possible.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

So are you saying the rendering is wrong?

All I see is a completely horizontal train track.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

All I see is a completely horizontal train track.

Well, I guess they must also be sinking the surrounding lands to build new structures around the tracks in the future, making it appear to be "lifted".

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Vin

Well, I guess they must also be sinking the surrounding lands to build new structures around the tracks in the future, making it appear to be "lifted".

But, tell us how the viewcones are to blame for this?

PS, I love the laughable "bike-thru" window in the render. Talk about pandering to the flavour of the month.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I'm pretty certain that most people in Strathcona will agree with me in stating that this is the worst option available. There is basically no net benefit to the neighbourhood, and this only solidifies Prior's use as a poorly implemented arterial.

The local benefits are astounding and locked into the underpass option along Prior. Improvements and upgrades along the road occur and which would not occur if another route other than Prior was chosen.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The local benefits are astounding and locked into the underpass option along Prior. Improvements and upgrades along the road occur and which would not occur if another route other than Prior was chosen.

You don't get it. People don't want Prior upgraded. They want it downgraded. That isn't a benefit.

The RoW is too narrow to do anything reasonable with. There is at most 20m between buildings at some points on Prior, and those buildings have been there far longer than Prior has been an arterial. Many properties have structures built right up to the property lines. You will never fit a proper width road in that cross section.

The only way to widen the road to a proper 4 lane cross section would be to either partially demolish or move a bunch of buildings and to take a slice off a large number of properties.

This is why people living nearby wanted the road either bypassed or downgraded. The traffic is generally all through traffic, it doesn't need to go through Strathcona.

[GenWhy?]

Upgrades as in the public realm upgrades. Crossing lights. Sidewalk and boulevard / added tree upgrades. These were a few mentions at a few of the committee / stakeholder meetings. I think the largest public concern was to have better ability to cross N-S from the residential area to Strathcona Park, which is occurring.

These are the immediate public benefits with the route chosen. Seemed pretty cut and dry since the day the routes were highlighted. Nothing surprising out out of place.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Upgrades as in the public realm upgrades. Crossing lights. Sidewalk and boulevard / added tree upgrades. These were a few mentions at a few of the committee / stakeholder meetings. I think the largest public concern was to have better ability to cross N-S from the residential area to Strathcona Park, which is occurring.

These are the immediate public benefits with the route chosen. Seemed pretty cut and dry since the day the routes were highlighted. Nothing surprising out out of place.

Why should residents care? They were lead to believe traffic would be diverted away from the residential street. A nice underpass (which given the area will get sketchy fast) is hardly a compensation.