Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[s211]

Sweet biscuits. Enough social housing in the area already!!! Why sink more into the pit?

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

You could potentially make a shorter right turn loop, like a small cloverleaf to hook it up, but it would take a good chunk out of the park space.

There is a cloverleaf-like loop from Main to Georgia Viaduct... you just have to investigate. =P it's just... more square in the case that the city wants to squeeze a few other buildings into the current park space.

[Metro-One]

Hello, as explained on another thread I just got back from another 4 weeks in Japan, where layers are nothing to be afraid of.

In cities with growing population and restricted geography (sounds a lot like Vancouver) layers become a necessity to keep surface areas prime for pedestrians and bicycles.

I dont feel like going on a big rant, I just feel like posting a couple pictures i took.


These two pics are the same spot and show a very common scene in Osaka. 3 layers, on the surface we have a relatively calm street with lots of pedestrian activity, above that is a metro line viaduct (akin to skytrain) and above that is a highway viaduct (where all of the trucks and through traffic goes). This is about at 11 at night on a weekday.







It makes a very interesting urban streetscape and there are still shops and tall building built right to the guideway's edges. During the day and the weekend this place is crazy busy with people.


And here is one that shows how commercial units can be built right into a road viaduct. Here, the viaduct is no more intrusive than any other row of buildings. It is not just one store, but an entire row of stores that goes about 200m to the next cross street.




And here is the bullet train guideway. If anywhere in NA wants true high speed rail, these trains need to be 100% separated from any cross traffic, meaning they have to run elevated or in tunnels in urban areas.




Japan is an area of amazingly functioning cities is such small places. Vancouver may be small in comparison, but downtown does exist on a small peninsula with very little land access to the rest of the region, making layers a little more important in our situation then other cities of similar size. it is amazing to see true functioning cities, with true commercial and entertainment zones, and low income people still able to afford condos downtown. I fear vancouver's idea of "livability" is far to geared towards the high middle class vacation condo group and making every corner of the city residential. True live work cities still have some defined areas for work and fun, with residential areas built very near by. Not always mixed.

The viaducts give us a chance to have a unique neighbourhood in the city that maybe all can afford to live in. it also gives the chance to build a unique e entreatment district as well (the stadiums are a perfect start).

But I still like Allan's idea of mitigation. Tear down 1 and retro fit the other into 4 lanes. There is no limit in option to build in that area while retaining 1 (or both) of the viaducts.

Just though I would share those.

All the photos are mine.

Cheers!

[jlousa]

Metro-One, I appreciate your passion on the subject, and I agree with keeping the viaducts in place. I don't think those pics though will garner much support, they might be functionable but those pics show what people are trying to fight, heavy traffic. The people that want them down want to get away from car culture, perhaps examples of lower levels that are completely pedestrian/green oriented as opposed to car centric and concrete would convince more people. Just my 2 cents.

[Metro-One]

I understand what your saying, but I hope people keep in mind that these pics are from Osaka and Tokyo, and these were also primary surface roads as well. In fact the surface traffic was amazing light for such large cities (And i was only caught on one viaduct jam due to an accident where two trucks collided). Also, nearly all the commercial traffic was on the ducts, so almost no heavy trucks on surface roads (which might be a reason why they are in such better shape than our roads)

I am also trying to show not just for cars, but for trains as well (such as the bullet train pic)

But I can see what you mean, some people may not like these, i think I more just wanted to show some pictures, hehe.

[biketrouble]

I am 100% in favour of converting the viaducts for bullet train use!

Oh, that's not what you're suggesting is it

[Metro-One]

If we were to be build HSR, this is how I would support it to be built, but Vancouver would deem such structures as ugly and we will never see it. And could you ever imagine people willing to live in condos so close to such a structure here??? What about all the valuable condo land wasted below it, oh no!

Almost every type of rail (besides subways) is elevated within urban and suburban areas in Japan, hence why they can travel so fast and are delayed so infrequently.

Even if they were to build a commuter rail to Surrey and Abbotsford, I would argue it should be built grade separated for its most urban stretches (through Vancouver, Burnaby) which would mean an elevated guideway instead of using freight rail lines and having to go through the same pain as the WCE

But it is amazing that a nation with such high rail use and great train systems also has fantastic highway systems to keep the goods flowing in and out of the inner cores without interfering with street level life, hmmm, sounds similar to what could be done here with something we already have....

Vancouver downtown = 80% or more cut off by water, i think one major road link from the east to the main business/commercial core is not so much to ask, especially when so many good ideas have been brought fourth on this thread about integration and mitigation.

The above pics I posted show a true functioning city, with good transportation/roads, strong business cores, fantastic entertainment areas, and housing for all wages nearby. Unfortunately, functionality is not always beautiful, but to may people, it has its own urban beauty. It seems Vancouver's idea is to turn everywhere into an overpriced condo in the park for more people to speculate on. Carbon copying Yaletown everywhere is not a true live/work city. Yaletown is a great place, but I don't want it everywhere. Having a little mix and some lower land prices to build lower income condo units next to some ducts might actually bring some more variety into our city, and give people a chance to live closer to all the wonderful "service" jobs downtown, without relying on social assistance. Not to mention under the ducts (or one of them) could become a unique to our area covered pedestrian shopping walkway, among many other things it can become. Some lights near the stadiums would help, on the pillars and on the bottom of the deck. But no, lets tear them down and build some more condos in their place. If the people complaining about these were truly about good urban development then why don't they complain to the city about increasing density along al of its Expo line stations that are still single detached housing areas. There is no excuse for Broadway, especially given its status as a major hub now.

[flight_from_kamakura]

allan kuan - nice work on the diagram, but it seems to me that a compelling reason for viaduct demolition/realignment is reappropriating those two blocks between quebec/gore and prior/union, which your design doesn't get done.

[Millennium2002]

allan kuan - nice work on the diagram, but it seems to me that a compelling reason for viaduct demolition/realignment is reappropriating those two blocks between quebec/gore and prior/union, which your design doesn't get done.

I know that not all of the block as been reassigned to other uses... but that is hard to avoid if we are to retain the viaduct. It'd actually be problematic too to rebuild the viaduct such that it takes less space than the alignment currently shown... as that would cause traffic problems on Main.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

If we were to be build HSR, this is how I would support it to be built, but Vancouver would deem such structures as ugly and we will never see it. And could you ever imagine people willing to live in condos so close to such a structure here??? What about all the valuable condo land wasted below it, oh no!

It doesn't necessarily have to be entirely elevated though. Keep in mind you can go under the surface without causing too much trouble.

I do have to say... Japan does put a lot of functionality first... unfortunately I think it'll be quite hard to change people's minds to be more accepting of that... they might think all those new viaducts and such might be obtrusive and will reduce standard and quality of living. To be honest, I can't really disagree with that... most people's eyes here are taught to avoid or dislike these structures.

One thing I have to say is that the city consistently seems to be forgetting to put jobs in the equation. In a way I can't complain because the demand for offices right now in the core is almost nil... but it'd be nice if they kept some room for office growth rather than building mountains of condos...

[biketrouble]

I actually grew up in London, which is completely full of Victorian railway viaducts, so I am pretty comfortable with the idea. But as far as the Georgia/Dunsmuir viaducts are concerned we are discussing road infrastructure here - and roads are not railways.

The impact of a viaduct on the urban landscape is a cost, so in order to see whether it is justified, you have to look at the benefits. Just in terms of people carried, rail is far, far more efficient than private cars and trucks. So it is perfectly possible to be against viaducts for cars but not for rail, depending on what you or I regard to be benefits.

I think it is safe to say that my calculation is different from yours, let's leave it at that.

Metro-One, you are very keen to push this idea that Vancouver should adopt japanese ideas about the urban environment - but I want to point out two things that I believe are inconsistent about the way you have argued this here and in other threads.

Firstly, you have insisted in another thread that approaches taken in New York (to prioritize pedestrian and cycle infrastructure over cars) are not applicable in Vancouver because "Vancouver is not New York". But clearly, Vancouver is not Osaka either - so why are Osaka's lessons more applicable than New York's? You have not told us this.

Secondly, you neglect to mention many things about Osaka which (I suspect) would be a lot less popular in this forum. Namely...
* No on-street parking
* Ownership of a parking certificate is required to be able to own a car (i.e you must own or rent a parking space.)
* Much higher levels of taxation on car ownership, both at purchase and on an annual basis.
* A much stricter car inspection regime than BC (that said, almost any inspection regime would be stricter than BC's, which is practically nonexistent.)

So it seems like you are only advocating the things from Osaka that make it easier to own a car, while omitting to mention the many things that make it harder. Why?

[p78hub]

Perhaps the city should go about fixing existing roads and improving transit service (buses, not necessarily Skytrain) before entertaining the idea of tearing down the viaducts? Just a thought.

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

Secondly, you neglect to mention many things about Osaka which (I suspect) would be a lot less popular in this forum. Namely...
* No on-street parking
* Ownership of a parking certificate is required to be able to own a car (i.e you must own or rent a parking space.)
* Much higher levels of taxation on car ownership, both at purchase and on an annual basis.
* A much stricter car inspection regime than BC (that said, almost any inspection regime would be stricter than BC's, which is practically nonexistent.)

Luckily, Osaka and Japan in general have huge automated (and some not) parkades located near central train stations that can hold thousands of cars.

I should say anybody owning a car should have a parking space, though, in Japan, I can bet there is an amusing reason as to why it is government mandated.

Yes, their version of an "eco tax" under Kyoto, which even Japan failed miserably to meet, and car ownership has risen to the top % per capita in Asia-Pacific, despite World class public transportation.

Inspections are a good thing. And yes, BC and Canada in general should have more.

Also keep in mind it costs thousands of dollars in training and testing to even get a license in Japan.

We shouldn't just hand licenses out to anybody who can afford a $800 beater here, either. Coincidentally, those cars wouldn't pass inspection in Japan

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

Secondly, you neglect to mention many things about Osaka which (I suspect) would be a lot less popular in this forum. Namely...
* No on-street parking
* Ownership of a parking certificate is required to be able to own a car (i.e you must own or rent a parking space.)
* Much higher levels of taxation on car ownership, both at purchase and on an annual basis.
* A much stricter car inspection regime than BC (that said, almost any inspection regime would be stricter than BC's, which is practically nonexistent.)

So it seems like you are only advocating the things from Osaka that make it easier to own a car, while omitting to mention the many things that make it harder. Why?

Highways are also heavily tolled. Although that's changing, tolls are being removed all over, now that Japan's LDP party's 54-year reign is over.

[twoNeurons]

The cost for entry for a car is a lot cheaper in Japan. They have a lot of "kei" class cars that start around the 10,000 - 12,000$ range.

Sure, they're all < 700cc and usually 3 cylinders... but how much more do you need if you're just commuting inside a city?

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

The cost for entry for a car is a lot cheaper in Japan. They have a lot of "kei" class cars that start around the 10,000 - 12,000$ range.

Sure, they're all < 700cc and usually 3 cylinders... but how much more do you need if you're just commuting inside a city?

Dangerously close to OT here, but it's widely accepted that the main reason kei-cars exist is because of a) the weight-based car tax regime and b) the parking space requirement allied with the fact that smaller parking spaces cost less - it's just real-estate after all, you pay by the square foot.

(Edit: I believe car width has also been a factor in regulation, which is why we saw many tall narrow cars from Japan in the 80s, for example from Daihatsu.)

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

...* A much stricter car inspection regime than BC (that said, almost any inspection regime would be stricter than BC's, which is practically nonexistent.)

Onerous inspections which exists largely to ensure that new (Japanese) cars are bought frequently. Japan's used car "rejects" then get shipped throughout East Asia.

[radacal]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

Not quite so. Ever heard of a story in Ottawa a few years ago where they literally "moved" new overpass pieces into place to replace an older structure at the same spot?

Island Park and Hwy 417 Rapid Bridge Replacement - Google Videos

A weekend closure of the Skytrain to do this type of work would be more than enough time for this work to take place if everything is done right.

You need to take into consideration all the electrical and communication infrastructure, not just the concrete. It would be highly unlikely that it could be disconnected, reconnected and tested in a weekend...

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

I actually grew up in London, which is completely full of Victorian railway viaducts, so I am pretty comfortable with the idea. But as far as the Georgia/Dunsmuir viaducts are concerned we are discussing road infrastructure here - and roads are not railways.

The impact of a viaduct on the urban landscape is a cost, so in order to see whether it is justified, you have to look at the benefits. Just in terms of people carried, rail is far, far more efficient than private cars and trucks. So it is perfectly possible to be against viaducts for cars but not for rail, depending on what you or I regard to be benefits.

I think it is safe to say that my calculation is different from yours, let's leave it at that.

Metro-One, you are very keen to push this idea that Vancouver should adopt japanese ideas about the urban environment - but I want to point out two things that I believe are inconsistent about the way you have argued this here and in other threads.

Firstly, you have insisted in another thread that approaches taken in New York (to prioritize pedestrian and cycle infrastructure over cars) are not applicable in Vancouver because "Vancouver is not New York". But clearly, Vancouver is not Osaka either - so why are Osaka's lessons more applicable than New York's? You have not told us this.

Secondly, you neglect to mention many things about Osaka which (I suspect) would be a lot less popular in this forum. Namely...
* No on-street parking
* Ownership of a parking certificate is required to be able to own a car (i.e you must own or rent a parking space.)
* Much higher levels of taxation on car ownership, both at purchase and on an annual basis.
* A much stricter car inspection regime than BC (that said, almost any inspection regime would be stricter than BC's, which is practically nonexistent.)

So it seems like you are only advocating the things from Osaka that make it easier to own a car, while omitting to mention the many things that make it harder. Why?

I will have to disagree with that. First of all you forget that rail doesnt take a person from point a to b, that person still has to walk, drive, bike, wait to and from the stations, and plan their trip. Second of all if this were the case then rail transport would be thriving, it is not, because it is not the case. The ability to to go from any point to any point at any time at a reasonable, fast and predictable speed is priceless, hence the rapid and quick death of rail once the more efficient automobile came around. Now im absolutely for more transit, there is a use for it and thats why we have it but not at the expense of infrastructure for cars.

[Yume-sama]

For rail to be effective, you'd literally have to have rail going everywhere. Like Tokyo, New York, etc. You are never far away from a station, and you can really get anywhere. We don't have that, nor could we support that with our population. If we did, and people didn't have to rely on buses still, ridership may be higher. And I say MAYBE because Japan, despite having the best public transportation (rail, very few buses in Tokyo) in the World, still has the highest % of car ownership on that side of the World.

It's still easier to take a taxi or car in Vancouver, where-as in Tokyo and New York, the train is likely to be more convenient. But people still drive... quite a bit of people.

I personally only take the train when I am going from A to B, like VCC to YVR, VCC - Aberdeen, etc.

[Metro-One]

The reason why car ownership is so high in Japan is because they have a very large middle class, and despite having arguably the world's best transit system, there are still countless situations where it is more convienient to drive.

Such as - Going shopping for many items (grocery shopping) that may require many stops or picking up large items, going to out of the way spots that are not easily accessible by transit (yes, they do exist in Japan), road trips, staying out past transit running hours (their trains stop around the same time ours do), dropping family off at train stations, going to special events, work vehicles, etc...

Just like here, not everyone in Japan has the ideal transit job or single/DINK lifestyle.