Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[GenWhy?]

The folks that wanted Prior turned from something akin to Clark into an Union St bikeway will never be happy.

[lokyin]

(From Daily Hive)

Definitely prefer this straight-ish option compared to the double 90 degree turns in the other (expensive) option.

Dreaming here but I wish we could use the opportunity to lay a parallel track on the BIR for the future UHSR!

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

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.

Sure you don't make things up. I don't make things up either - you were saying they could put the rail in a trench. I suggested that was unlikely, and asked if anyone other than you had suggested it, or had you made it up? You never referenced any other report or news story, so it seems reasonable to assume that you made it up.

The cost of around $100m came from the published information in 2017. "The Malkin option would cost $80 million to $130 million".

There's no new costing for the Malkin option(s) - the $400m cost relates to a National/Charles route, which is longer and more complex. Malkin was the preferred route until very recently. Again, from the report "Although Malkin Avenue was once assumed for over a decade to be the likely route due to its historic wide street right-of-way, all of the Malkin options (North, Central, South variations) would have major impacts to food-related businesses and employment lands of high importance to the City, as per the False Creek Flats Area Plan (2017). Route options on Malkin were strongly opposed by many community members, including many businesses".

The neighbourhood is going crazy about the idea of keeping the through route on Prior - although the intent is that there will be less, and slower traffic. The report to Council says "That staff implement a pilot to reduce traffic volumes and speeds on Prior/Venables Street with low cost initiatives in the near term, such as all-day parking on both sides and temporary curb bulges, with the intention of restricting traffic to one traffic lane in each direction".

It'll be interesting to see if Councillor Fry persuades enough of his colleagues to reject the Engineers suggestion.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

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.

What have you been smoking? Your question is rather incoherent.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Sure you don't make things up. I don't make things up either - you were saying they could put the rail in a trench. I suggested that was unlikely, and asked if anyone other than you had suggested it, or had you made it up? You never referenced any other report or news story, so it seems reasonable to assume that you made it up.

The cost of around $100m came from the published information in 2017. "The Malkin option would cost $80 million to $130 million".

There's no new costing for the Malkin option(s) - the $400m cost relates to a National/Charles route, which is longer and more complex. Malkin was the preferred route until very recently. Again, from the report "Although Malkin Avenue was once assumed for over a decade to be the likely route due to its historic wide street right-of-way, all of the Malkin options (North, Central, South variations) would have major impacts to food-related businesses and employment lands of high importance to the City, as per the False Creek Flats Area Plan (2017). Route options on Malkin were strongly opposed by many community members, including many businesses".

The neighbourhood is going crazy about the idea of keeping the through route on Prior - although the intent is that there will be less, and slower traffic. The report to Council says "That staff implement a pilot to reduce traffic volumes and speeds on Prior/Venables Street with low cost initiatives in the near term, such as all-day parking on both sides and temporary curb bulges, with the intention of restricting traffic to one traffic lane in each direction".

It'll be interesting to see if Councillor Fry persuades enough of his colleagues to reject the Engineers suggestion.

You quoted a very low nuimber at $100 mil for Malkin when it was actually way more than that, and only you and other gullible folks would believe in lies from 2017 to pander to those to support that lousy option. You questioned me when I insisted that having a flyover is way more expensive than that. I was also talking more about continuing to use Prior as the main connector, and having a cut for the railway is just an option. The City decided to create a cut for Prior instead. That's not making things up. Just admit that you were wrong.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

You quoted a very low nuimber at $100 mil for Malkin when it was actually way more than that, and only you and other gullible folks would believe in lies from 2017 to pander to those to support that lousy option. You questioned me when I insisted that having a flyover is way more expensive than that. I was also talking more about continuing to use Prior as the main connector, and having a cut for the railway is just an option. The City decided to create a cut for Prior instead. That's not making things up. Just admit that you were wrong.

I quoted the Vancouver Sun. Having a cut for the railway appears to be something you invented.

[officedweller]

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.

Agreed - as that might add more screeching...

It'll be the same as many underpasses (or "subways" as they are called) in Toronto:


Creator: Alfred J. Pearson. Date: April 23, 1932. Archival Citation: Fonds 16, Series 71, Item 9181.
https://www.historynerd.ca/2017/02/17/the-cnrs-overunder-on-bloor-street/

The artists have just eliminated the walls next to the sidewalk in these renderings to make it more appealing:


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

[Alex Mackinnon]

I think an underpass is rather unlikely there anyways. The edge of the old dump is right there, and the rail bed isn't very far above sea level. Putting an underpass there without raising the rail bed (which is unlikely), would put the bottom of the underpass either very near or below sea level.

This would mean that keeping the underpass from flooding may be difficult, since any water nearby would pool here.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I think an underpass is rather unlikely there anyways. The edge of the old dump is right there, and the rail bed isn't very far above sea level. Putting an underpass there without raising the rail bed (which is unlikely), would put the bottom of the underpass either very near or below sea level.

This would mean that keeping the underpass from flooding may be difficult, since any water nearby would pool here.

It's not as low there as further west. If you turn the contours on in VanMap you'll see that the track is between 6 and 7 metres above sea level, so adding drains shouldn't be a problem. The new Villa Cathay (Chinese Senior's Home), very close to where the underpass would be, added 2 levels of underground parking underneath the new tower.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's not as low there as further west. If you turn the contours on in VanMap you'll see that the track is between 6 and 7 metres above sea level, so adding drains shouldn't be a problem. The new Villa Cathay (Chinese Senior's Home), very close to where the underpass would be, added 2 levels of underground parking underneath the new tower.

One of those has a roof on it to keep rain out.

If you ever see footage of flash floods and cars floating away down a road, it's almost always on these kind of underpass structures. They're natural rain traps, and unless the economics are really against an overpass, then its likely that this will go that way.

Going below grade is also almost always more expensive than above grade.

To me this screams pretty photo by concept artist. Just like the centre bike lane on the Granville Bridge, this looks cool but is probably not a great idea.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

...........
If you ever see footage of flash floods and cars floating away down a road, it's almost always on these kind of underpass structures. They're natural rain traps, and unless the economics are really against an overpass, then its likely that this will go that way.

Going below grade is also almost always more expensive than above grade.

To me this screams pretty photo by concept artist. Just like the centre bike lane on the Granville Bridge, this looks cool but is probably not a great idea.

I'm no engineer, but I think you're right about the danger of flooding, especially now with the heavier storms that Vancouver seems to be getting.
However, my biggest worry is that there will be a scream of "NO" from the immediate building residents, not wanting an overpass going by their window, if that is to be the design.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I'm no engineer, but I think you're right about the danger of flooding, especially now with the heavier storms that Vancouver seems to be getting.
However, my biggest worry is that there will be a scream of "NO" from the immediate building residents, not wanting an overpass going by their window, if that is to be the design.

Those couple blocks are a bit more industrial that the rest of the neighbourhood.

I think they're going to say no regardless though. There's been posters and fliers go out recently.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

One of those has a roof on it to keep rain out.

If you ever see footage of flash floods and cars floating away down a road, it's almost always on these kind of underpass structures. They're natural rain traps, and unless the economics are really against an overpass, then its likely that this will go that way.

Going below grade is also almost always more expensive than above grade.

To me this screams pretty photo by concept artist. Just like the centre bike lane on the Granville Bridge, this looks cool but is probably not a great idea.

I agree with your observations about underpasses - I would hope the City Engineers had thought of the potential flooding issue, but it's not something they have much experience of dealing with. I had assumed the basement parking structures in low lying parkades also have to be able to drain away naturally if they get flooded, but maybe not?

If they switch to an overpass it might need more land, and property, as it won't be as easy dealing with the kink on Prior and Venables, which is close to the rail tracks. I think it would also impact that new Chinese Seniors tower more.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I quoted the Vancouver Sun. Having a cut for the railway appears to be something you invented.

You would say the same thing if I mentioned a cut for Prior Street. At least I used logic to question a certain decision or choice: while you google around to quote what others say and assume they are gold. Sorry to burst your bubble: usually they are not: not even close.

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I'm no engineer, but I think you're right about the danger of flooding, especially now with the heavier storms that Vancouver seems to be getting.
However, my biggest worry is that there will be a scream of "NO" from the immediate building residents, not wanting an overpass going by their window, if that is to be the design.

Good sub-levels have drainage systems that direct water to a pump. Same can be employed here. Therefore flooding is not an issue.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Good sub-levels have drainage systems that direct water to a pump. Same can be employed here. Therefore flooding is not an issue.

Good thing those never fail, especially when they are needed most.

I do think the underpass will be ok though, it's not huge anyway. If it floods that would be bad, but it wont't be a massive issue.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Good thing those never fail, especially when they are needed most.

I do think the underpass will be ok though, it's not huge anyway. If it floods that would be bad, but it wont't be a massive issue.

There is a pump station as part of the $125 million estimated cost of the underpass, so at least that's part of the plan. Obviously it not fail safe, as you note.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

You would say the same thing if I mentioned a cut for Prior Street. At least I used logic to question a certain decision or choice: while you google around to quote what others say and assume they are gold. Sorry to burst your bubble: usually they are not: not even close.

Well, the irony metre just exploded.

Originally Posted by Changing City

There is a pump station as part of the $125 million estimated cost of the underpass, so at least that's part of the plan. Obviously it not fail safe, as you note.

Question is, pump it to where? Anywhere nearby just means it flows right back down.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Vin

You would say the same thing if I mentioned a cut for Prior Street. At least I used logic to question a certain decision or choice: while you google around to quote what others say and assume they are gold. Sorry to burst your bubble: usually they are not: not even close.




Good sub-levels have drainage systems that direct water to a pump. Same can be employed here. Therefore flooding is not an issue.

I just said its harder, not impossible. Harder usually means that another option is more viable.

If you look at this very rail line, every other crossing is an overpass. I wonder why that might be?

[SpongeG]

this render is slightly different


Global news
https://globalnews.ca/news/5967486/false-creek-new-road-city/

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Well, the irony metre just exploded.



Question is, pump it to where? Anywhere nearby just means it flows right back down.

Migrant you need to have a better understanding of infrastructure. The whole Metro Area is kept dry by pumps. We have a tunnel under the river that has yet to flood. The pump would feed into a storm line that would also pump into false creek or the Inlet.

Design changes allow parkades to be built below at the water table. RIchmond has 3 levels of underground now.

The underpass will be ideal for this location and will impact the neighborhood the least