Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[jlousa]

With minimal maintance there is no reason they can't last to be a hundred years old. Surely when they were built the standard were much higher then when the Granville St bridge was built or the Burrard St bridge. Once they do need to be replaced because of end of servicable life we'll let future citizens make the decision on what the right course of action is.

[theKB]

I think it's not that they should be replaced once their service life has expired but one would hope that when that time came that there would have been sufficient infrastructure development in other areas (be it rapid transit, road infrastructure etc) that allowed for this to be put in motion to use the land in another way.

This along with other vision plans that are constantly being floated (greeway down the center of the granville bridge, more separated bike lanes etc) that have not really done anything to help the city grow or make the movement of people and goods more efficient.

There has to be a shift to more efficient means of transport but the fact remains that Vancouver is still in a growth phase where population is concerned. You can't keep removing or making it more difficult for on ground transportation get around. This affects the movement of mass transit, goods and the evil car which in the end creates traffic nightmares.

It almost seems overly rushed and that this is more being pushed in the name of special interest instead of a clear vision of long term growth, development and sustainability.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

I have to wonder though, for those of you in favour of keeping the Viaducts... Do you think they should stay until they crumble (maintaining them as best as possible along the way)? and then rebuild them?

That day is 50-60 years away. Most of us participating on this forum will be dead before the viaducts reach end-of-life. The generation that will make that decision hasn't even been born yet. It is very presumptious for our generation to make snap decisions about a piece of infrastructure that will outlive most of us.

It's academic to guess what the urban situation will be when the viaducts reach end-of-life. The Falls Creek Flats were only just filled in 60 years ago. What changes will happen over the next 60 years?

There have been viaduct(s) in this location far longer than 60 years, but for different reasons at different times. The flats have been filled in and the railyard has come and gone, but one thing remains: the steep escarpment. The escarpment will still be there for the next 60 years (I assume). Viaducts are one solution to the escarpment.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

That new plan is going to be a traffic nightmare, making a problem where one did not exist before...

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

This is my thinking as well....take a free flowing route, and replace with 5 intersections over the same distance. Why is this a good thing?

Opinion Thirded

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by jlousa

With minimal maintance there is no reason they can't last to be a hundred years old. Surely when they were built the standard were much higher then when the Granville St bridge was built or the Burrard St bridge. Once they do need to be replaced because of end of servicable life we'll let future citizens make the decision on what the right course of action is.

This is why I completely disregarded that bridge / cycling report produced by the city last week, because you could tell it was insanely biased and tampered with.

They reported all other bridge structures as good to excellent, and rated the viaducts as poor on almost all structural categories.....so suspect!!!

Especially since Translink had recently done their own engineering survey of the structures and rated them as excellent in condition...

The First Ave viaduct was even rated as excellent (much higher than Dunsmir and Georgia) What a joke of a study.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

I feel like at least one, maybe two of those 5 (or 6 depending how you look at it) intersections within a few hundred metres
could (or should?) be right in/right out only or even right in/right out/left out instead of full movement.

OMG what a lot of lights, waits, and turns. Have we GOT to go for this? If it ain't broke, DON'T FIX IT.

[Sir Conga]

Thank you Jlousa, TheKB, and Zassk, for your responses. I am beginning to come around on the removal of the Viaducts being somewhat foolish in the near future... as much as I think the area would be better off without them.

[Jebby]

I wish the viaducts were renovated. By that I mean the grass mounds at Main St should be removed and some retail built under them. That would go a long way towards ending the 'barrier effect' that they create. Also the 'park' the viaducts go through on the east side of Main should be removed and built out and the 'park' on the west side should be redone. I'd remove the trees and make the park seem more urban. It's such a waste of space as is.

Obviously also the Malkin Connector should be built to take traffic out directly to Clark St.

[theKB]

Originally Posted by Jebby

I wish the viaducts were renovated. By that I mean the grass mounds at Main St should be removed and some retail built under them. That would go a long way towards ending the 'barrier effect' that they create. Also the 'park' the viaducts go through on the east side of Main should be removed and built out and the 'park' on the west side should be redone. I'd remove the trees and make the park seem more urban. It's such a waste of space as is.

I agree with you, a creative solution to this as it sits now instead of tearing it down to make way for more greenspace/condos at a massive cost to the taxpayer just does not seem logical.

IF you look at cities that are far denser they have done amazing jobs integrating spaces such as those under/around these elevated roads (or train tracks in other cities) and making them vibrant and alive parts of the city.

If you look at tokyo they have markets/hawker stands located under these sorts of structures that are constantly bustling. Not to say this is the solution but as an idea, why not create a sort of permanent market/night market there under the viaducts? The space is there, it would be an interesting addition to the area given its close proximity to china town and the stadiums etc. Of course it would require other regulatory changes but it could be something different and really give the area some life (especially given the success of the richmond night market and even the much smaller keefer one.)

I don't know there are other solutions out there that don't require the city to drop a pile of cash that would give the downtown core some unique flair instead of more green glassed condos and as I said it's just one idea.

[mr.x]

^ As much as I like the "Tokyo" comparison, it's best to not mention it to the people in this city. You'll scare them off.


Kinda hilarious how the last 9 posts are simply a repeat of what we've concluded again and again...and again....and again in this thread. That this whole thing is terrible and we'll end up with a gong show in the end.

I think if some of us are this passionate about the whole issue, you should do something about it beyond this forum. It's a real travesty, but we're just going around in circles here when you could be doing something to let others outside of this online nerd-fest know why this could quite possibly be the worst policy decision this council has ever made.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by mr.x

^ As much as I like the "Tokyo" comparison, it's best to not mention it to the people in this city. You'll scare them off.

No, it's because Tokyo is all but irrelevant for city planning in Vancouver.

[wrenegade]

I am firmly in the camp that opposes the removal of the viaducts because I believe they still serve a very useful purpose and are far from the end of their useful life. What I can't believe though is why this issue continually gets more attention from city hall than so many other transportation related issues that are far more pressing. Even bike related ones! The Burrard Bridge bike lanes are ok, but they aren't a permanent solution (yet), and any permanent solution should figure out how to fix the lack of an eastern sidewalk for pedestrians. The Cambie Street bridge needs a better western sidewalk/bike lane (though I understand this is in the works). Point Grey Road is a mess and needs to be fixed, the area around SW Marine between Granville and Cambie is also a mess and I could go on. Beyond the cycling issues, the Malkin connector should have been built 15+ years ago, what about the streetcar project, and then there is Transit. Just because in the past individual municipalities haven't coughed up money for rapid transit doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. If Vancouver wants 40% or 50% or whatever percentage of trips via Transit by 2040 they are going to have to do something themselves rather than just publish studies and demand things. It doesn't seem like the 21 municipalities and the province can agree on any good solution to the funding issue so it will take forever to get anything done. I'm probably ranting but I'm frustrated. So many issues to deal with but City Hall focusses on the damn viaducts. Speaking of which, how does replacing two highway type roads with one super road help transit or cycling at all?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

No, it's because Tokyo is all but irrelevant for city planning in Vancouver.

As is Copenhagen.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

As is Copenhagen.

Yep, get your random cyclist-bashing in.. check!

[makr3trkr]

Wonder if they considered using traffic circles to reduce the number of intersections, or if that would be too chaotic.

Even a short trenched section, dipping under some of the cross streets like in Washington DC would be better than what they are proposing

Or you could combine the two and have a traffic circle with a dip for thru-traffic underneath (which they also have in DC)

Not opposed to removing the viaducts, but replacing it with more roads and gridlock doesn't make the area more "livable" either.

[red-paladin]

To be honest, and this is just my thoughts, it's almost like the city and concord pacific are trying to keep north and north east false creek separated from Chinatown and the DTES by removing the Viaducts and planting another giant city block sized park. The end result creates a 'rich side of the big field and the poor side' type of effect, with a long busy boulevard from one side to the other. It's not 'healing the city' in my mind.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

Wonder if they considered using traffic circles to reduce the number of intersections, or if that would be too chaotic.

Even a short trenched section, dipping under some of the cross streets like in Washington DC would be better than what they are proposing

Or you could combine the two and have a traffic circle with a dip for thru-traffic underneath (which they also have in DC)

Not opposed to removing the viaducts, but replacing it with more roads and gridlock doesn't make the area more "livable" either.

Can't do a trench section along Expo & Pacific Boulevards, because most of the area there is land-fill created when CPR needed more yard space.

Original shore-line of False Creek was up to Pender Street.

Oh, and digging up the soil will also dig up the industrial run-off from when the area was CPR yards and waterfront industry.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Can't do a trench section along Expo & Pacific Boulevards, because most of the area there is land-fill created when CPR needed more yard space.

Original shore-line of False Creek was up to Pender Street.

Oh, and digging up the soil will also dig up the industrial run-off from when the area was CPR yards and waterfront industry.

I kind of imagined so. They could do 6 or 8 foot berms to hide the roadway from the waterfront/park though.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

No, it's because Tokyo is all but irrelevant for city planning in Vancouver.

So we can't have activities or even developments under the viaducts like what they do in Tokyo? We can't put an effort into improving the viaducts like Tokyo?

On a planning context, with Tokyo there are micro relevances like how to improve the viaducts but not macro ones like whether we should demolish it.

In any case, virtually all major cities cited have efficient and high-capacity roadways IN ADDITION to equivalently competent and comprehensive transit.


For the most part, this whole force-fed cycling fad is just silly when we can see real, year-round results with improved transit. For instance, bus lanes instead of bike lanes on the Burrard Bridge. Time and time again, when winter comes or whenever it rains, these bike lanes are more or less virtually vacant of any bikes.

Reality Check and Common Sense.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by mr.x

So we can't have activities or even developments under the viaducts like what they do in Tokyo? We can't put an effort into improving the viaducts like Tokyo?

On a planning context, with Tokyo there are micro relevances like how to improve the viaducts but not macro ones like whether we should demolish it.

In any case, virtually all major cities cited have efficient and high-capacity roadways IN ADDITION to equivalently competent and comprehensive transit.


For the most part, this whole force-fed cycling fad is just silly when we can see real, year-round results with improved transit. For instance, bus lanes instead of bike lanes on the Burrard Bridge. Time and time again, when winter comes or whenever it rains, these bike lanes are more or less virtually vacant of any bikes.

Reality Check and Common Sense.

I wouldn't like to see buildings under the viaducts, instead I would like to see buildings around the Viaducts and the space under the viaducts used as a protected outdoor area. If the area becomes an entertainment district, then the space under the viaducts could be patio space protected from the rain, or space for people to line up to get into bars, space for food carts to be sheltered, space for protected basketball/tennis courts, and more.

You don't have to fill in the space under the viaducts with buildings, but there are plenty of creative uses that the space under them can be used for.

Right now it seems so bad because it is basically a toxic wasteland that was never cleaned up, with barbed wire fences acting as literal barriers between False creek and Chinatown. Put some buildings with commercial space on the ground floor around the viaducts, then open up the space to the public.

Do you know how nice it would be to basically have a rain ready public square? Put some effing lights on it and it could be our version of the Fremont Street Experience, with people waiting for bars and enjoying patios.


And I agree. There is too much effort put into bike lanes. While i do think they are useful and we need more, city hall has become a bit of a one trick pony regarding transportation in the city. Cycling isn't for everyone all the time. Other than a report here or there they are completely ignoring transit. And transit is what got the city to the point it is at now, with so many trips into downtown not in cars. That's because of transit. And this city has done nothing to make the most important part of sustainable transportation any better at all. In fact, when trying to get over Burrard, it's even worse.