Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[officedweller]

With all the DTES issues right now, I wonder how marketable NEFC condos would be?
I could see the viaducts torn down and the new ramp built, with empty lots remaining for years thereafter.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

they have like 1/2 their useful life left. i didn't know we replaced watermains or sewermains built in 1972; oh wait, we dont.

why cant development go around them, and incorporate them?

You think sewer mains and elevated roadways are the same? Dunno where to start with that ignorance.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by officedweller

With all the DTES issues right now, I wonder how marketable NEFC condos would be?
I could see the viaducts torn down and the new ramp built, with empty lots remaining for years thereafter.

With St. Paul's and associated buildings close by, that land and the demand to live there will be higher than ever.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

they have like 1/2 their useful life left. i didn't know we replaced watermains or sewermains built in 1972; oh wait, we dont.

why cant development go around them, and incorporate them?

Because recent detailed studies have shown that a couple of the columns have inadequate seismic performance. To keep them they would have to be strengthened, and partly rebuilt. The span over SkyTrain might fail, so that needs attention. That would close them for a protracted period anyway. The costs would have to come out of general revenue, and be included in the capital plan that is voted on at each election.

By replacing them, the costs can be included in the NEFC redevelopment and paid for significantly by the CACs from the land development. The Plaza of Nations development is already contributing part of those costs. Concord Pacific have delayed negotiations on their projects, possibly because they have been in court (unsuccessfully) with the owners of the Plaza for many years. When they're ready to develop, the replacement can move ahead. Unless we have an earthquake in the meantime.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You think sewer mains and elevated roadways are the same? Dunno where to start with that ignorance.

what do you think is more dangerous in a major earthquake? the failure of an elevated road, or the failure of the drinking water & sewerage system?

most of Vancouver is still cast iron, push-on pipe. it will fail in an earthquake. so much of the system pre-dates the invention of rubber rings. the majority is not at all hardened for an earthquake.

the failure of the water & sewerage systems means the spread of diseases & death. that wouldn't happen with this section of road. yes it would end up unusable, but it certainly wont cause wide spread disease or make vast swaths of the city unlivable. San Francisco had more deaths from fire than the earthquake back in 1906; the water system failed which is why the city burned. the DFPS system in Vancouver does not protect much of the city at all. We are just as vulnerable since Vancouver is one of the cities with watermains over 100yrs old. (look around at the water layer in VanMap and you'll see).

the costs of retrofitting Vs tearing down infrastructure 1/2 through its life is a lot less. what was the last cost estimate? like $500m to take them down? like $80-$100m to retrofit?

i would rather these CAC's, etc be used to actually benefit people. tearing down the viaducts does nothing but make developers more $$$, and please the anti-car people. whereas using that money to strengthen the water & sewerage systems can and would literally protect lives.

people would rather piss away money on useless 🞵🞵🞵🞵 then actually do something that would benefit people. everyone takes water & sewers for granted. i certainly hope we never have an earthquake

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Valid point, but we're already seeing the street network on both ends of the viaducts becoming gridlocked... and from there, it's only a matter of time before the viaducts themselves become gridlocked too and their usefulness drops into the negatives. It's not exactly a highway to begin with; you're only skipping 6-8 blocks.

Except it’s a straight shot from downtown to the new St Pauls over the viaducts. How Vancouver that this connection will be severed just as the new hospital opens.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

what do you think is more dangerous in a major earthquake? the failure of an elevated road, or the failure of the drinking water & sewerage system?

Do you have evidence that sewers and drinking water systems will fail in an earthquake? The City is replacing sewer lines as we speak, it's a decades long project.

most of Vancouver is still cast iron, push-on pipe. it will fail in an earthquake. so much of the system pre-dates the invention of rubber rings. the majority is not at all hardened for an earthquake.

Do you have evidence that sewers and drinking water systems will fail in an earthquake? As in, an engineering report?

The City is replacing sewer lines as we speak, it's a decades long project.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

the costs of retrofitting Vs tearing down infrastructure 1/2 through its life is a lot less. what was the last cost estimate? like $500m to take them down? like $80-$100m to retrofit?

How would demolition possibly cost 5-6x a retrofit? That's a ridiculous assumption.

Feel free to provide real evidence any time for your claims.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Except it’s a straight shot from downtown to the new St Pauls over the viaducts. How Vancouver that this connection will be severed just as the new hospital opens.

Except when there's traffic and zero ability for the emergency vehicles to move around it.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

the costs of retrofitting Vs tearing down infrastructure 1/2 through its life is a lot less. what was the last cost estimate? like $500m to take them down? like $80-$100m to retrofit?

i would rather these CAC's, etc be used to actually benefit people. tearing down the viaducts does nothing but make developers more $$$, and please the anti-car people. whereas using that money to strengthen the water & sewerage systems can and would literally protect lives.

people would rather piss away money on useless 🞵🞵🞵🞵 then actually do something that would benefit people. everyone takes water & sewers for granted. i certainly hope we never have an earthquake

The City can't spend CACs from NEFC on infrastructure outside the immediate area. Some of the CACs from NEFC development will pay for new sewer and water pipes to service the entire area, and replace the exiting ones. That makes more money available from the general funds to build new sewers in the rest of the city.

The total costs for everything that is planned to replace the viaducts is $360m (including an $85m contingency), but that includes all the remediation, new park space, relocation and upgrading of the groundwater protection system, upgraded infrastructure and an additional seismic resilient street design. About half of that would have to spent whatever gets built - whether the viaducts are retained or not. Demolition frees up two full city blocks, and additional space in others, that generate either land value to build housing to meet city goals, or additional CACs where that land become developable by owners like Concord.

The 2018 estimated cost of repairing the viaducts for a 50 year life to an intermediate seismic level was $90m. The cost to totally replace them to a 100 year seismic level is $120m, and if the route was to be retained, that's the City Engineer's recommendation - but it would have to be paid from general revenue and would come from the same capital funds currently paying for upgraded sewer and water pipes (not from CACs).

The cost to demolish the existing viaducts and build the new viaduct on Georgia to Pacific is $96m, the revised design of Pacific at NEFC is $14m and the addition of a new Pacific Blvd design west of Georgia; including a Great Street design and resilient roadway; coordination with new St Paul’s Hospital and future streetcar is $45m. Moving and adding additional resiliency to City utilities is $21m. Detouring and temporary traffic management during construction is $7m.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Except it’s a straight shot from downtown to the new St Pauls over the viaducts. How Vancouver that this connection will be severed just as the new hospital opens.

As opposed to the ambulances not being able to use the viaducts at all? Heavy traffic is what the sirens are for.

[officedweller]

Good point about St. Paul's and residential demand in the area.
Hopefully St. Paul's will be a catalyst for the area.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Good point about St. Paul's and residential demand in the area.
Hopefully St. Paul's will be a catalyst for the area.

I agree. The sooner the low rise Strathcona neighbourhood is levelled for highrises the better! If it was good for the West End…

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The City can't spend CACs from NEFC on infrastructure outside the immediate area. Some of the CACs from NEFC development will pay for new sewer and water pipes to service the entire area, and replace the exiting ones. That makes more money available from the general funds to build new sewers in the rest of the city.

The total costs for everything that is planned to replace the viaducts is $360m (including an $85m contingency), but that includes all the remediation, new park space, relocation and upgrading of the groundwater protection system, upgraded infrastructure and an additional seismic resilient street design. About half of that would have to spent whatever gets built - whether the viaducts are retained or not. Demolition frees up two full city blocks, and additional space in others, that generate either land value to build housing to meet city goals, or additional CACs where that land become developable by owners like Concord.

The 2018 estimated cost of repairing the viaducts for a 50 year life to an intermediate seismic level was $90m. The cost to totally replace them to a 100 year seismic level is $120m, and if the route was to be retained, that's the City Engineer's recommendation - but it would have to be paid from general revenue and would come from the same capital funds currently paying for upgraded sewer and water pipes (not from CACs).

The cost to demolish the existing viaducts and build the new viaduct on Georgia to Pacific is $96m, the revised design of Pacific at NEFC is $14m and the addition of a new Pacific Blvd design west of Georgia; including a Great Street design and resilient roadway; coordination with new St Paul’s Hospital and future streetcar is $45m. Moving and adding additional resiliency to City utilities is $21m. Detouring and temporary traffic management during construction is $7m.

You can add a fairly large % on top of that. Construction price inflation has been considerably greater that normal inflation in recent years.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Except it’s a straight shot from downtown to the new St Pauls over the viaducts. How Vancouver that this connection will be severed just as the new hospital opens.

I doubt a 1km viaduct versus an ambulance going through 3-4 lights would make much difference over the long term.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

As opposed to the ambulances not being able to use the viaducts at all? Heavy traffic is what the sirens are for.

An ambulance siren would be of little use when the viaducts are backed up - there's nowhere for cars to pull over...

[GMD]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The cost to demolish the existing viaducts and build the new viaduct on Georgia to Pacific is $96m, the revised design of Pacific at NEFC is $14m and the addition of a new Pacific Blvd design west of Georgia; including a Great Street design and resilient roadway; coordination with new St Paul’s Hospital and future streetcar is $45m. Moving and adding additional resiliency to City utilities is $21m. Detouring and temporary traffic management during construction is $7m.

Thanks - super interesting to get the breakdown. The viaducts seem like a case of status quo bias - they are there now, so people make arguments to keep them. But imagine if instead there was already a stretch of dense development along a typical urban road in the area - would anyone seriously be advocating demolishing that neighbourhood to build the viaducts? Is anyone proposing that anywhere else in the city?

In both cases, the answer is no, because we understand that built up development along urban roads contributes far more to the city than freeways through the middle of the city.

I doubt it will happen, but I would love to see Ken Sim and ABC lead the demolition of the viaducts and redevelopment of NEFC - that would be a true city-building legacy for them to leave behind.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

An ambulance siren would be of little use when the viaducts are backed up - there's nowhere for cars to pull over...

Kinda my point - the ambulances can't go on the viaducts at all, but with a Georgia Ramp, it's a regular arterial where they get the right of way.

[MIPS]

What is more valuable to the city?

Unleashing a potential traffic hell that the current mayor and council won't have to worry about because they won't be around city hall in a decade anyways, or several hundred million dollars worth of new developments that Concord Pacific has been trying to get their hands on forever to the point they've just squatted that whole end of False Creek until the land became "available"?

We went over this before here that there was some serious pandering in city hall to remove the viaducts and eat the traffic cost of redesigning the road networks on main, Expo and Pacific because there is an insane amount of money on the line to redevelop the land into a much larger plan and building around the Viaducts or even replacing and integrating it into the new development was making people cry about they money the wouldn't be making.

[GMD]

Originally Posted by MIPS

What is more valuable to the city?

Unleashing a potential traffic hell...

Sure, sure, *this* time it will be carmageddon for sure, not like the other 10,000 times car lovers have warned us that whatever change was being made would lead to carmageddon, but it never seems to happen, does it?

Yawn.

L.A. is a city that has done everything it can to add more lanes and freeways wherever possible - so the traffic must be great there, right?

It is counter-intuitive, but that is the reality of life in big cities, making it easier to drive means more people drive, and making it harder for people to drive means fewer people drive, so the purported congestion relief benefits of new roadways never materializes, and the purported carmageddon from reducing room or accommodation for cars never materializes either.

I mean seriously, yeah, you might hit an extra red light or two without the viaduct, but I don't think it will bring the city to its knees. And as you rightly point out, the value created by removing the viaduct is in the hundreds of millions...

[Snow_Wolf]

Originally Posted by officedweller

With all the DTES issues right now, I wonder how marketable NEFC condos would be?
I could see the viaducts torn down and the new ramp built, with empty lots remaining for years thereafter.

Honestly with house prices in this city, people will pay a million dollars to live anywhere in Vancouver city proper.