Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[IanS]

No pressing need, but I still don't see the reason for the hysteria surrounding council's decision to press on with a study.

I realize that characterizing those on the other side of the debate as hysterical might be satisfying, but, IMO, a decision to spend $700,000 on an issue where there is no pressing need to do so, when there are limited resources available and so many pressing needs, is worthy of a little criticism.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by racc

You mean like during the Olympics when both Viaducts were closed? Oh wait, hundreds of thousands of people per day came downtown on transit to enjoy cultural and sporting institutions. The Viaducts were closed and it was the best time in Vancouver ever. Lets build on that success!

Absolutely right. I think we should look at what happened during the Olympics and take that as a model on how to plan going forward, as what occurred during that two weeks is clearly typical of circumstances in Vancouver.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

There'd be more traction to this argument if the structure was being used as intended, but we all know that the viaducts were intended to be onramps to a freeway that was never built...

Patently false. They replaced a viaduct built in 1915, exclusive of the proposed freeway.

As such they provided an efficient flow of vehicle traffic into and out of downtown Vancouver, which Vision seems hellbent on wrecking for purely idealogoical reasons. As Metro has grown eastwards it stands to reason that these east-west connections are needed more than ever.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by cabotp

So we build the Malkin Connector to Clarke Drive. Then eventually people will complain about the traffic again. So there will be a huge debate and people will want the connector expanded up the cut. Then they will want it expanded along the Grandview Hwy area. Then they will want it expanded in terms of the number of lanes.

That is why I'm against the idea of the Malkin Connector.

With the rail line and the Skytrain Millennium line already using the cut, I think it will be difficult to add two or four lanes of roadway through the cut now, but twenty years ago you might have been able to convince the railway to move out for a new roadway before the Skytrain was added in there. When all the unique species that live only in the cut were discovered when the Millennium Line was being proposed, that almost killed having the the Millennium Line built in there so I doubt that anyone would allow a new roadway to be built in the cut & have it cover up the local flora and fauna.

I've done a quick map of the Malkin connector:


By jsbertram at 2010-06-20

the Red line shows a new extension of the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts curving south and continuing over Prior St, and then once south of Prior the roadway drops to ground level to connect with Malkin Ave.

The Blue line is the long-discussed Malkin Connector that joins Malkin Ave to Clark Dr.

With this in place, Prior St would no longer be a truck route which would require trucks to use Malkin & make Prior more of a residential street again. Prior wouldn't have a direct connection to the viaducts, but Strathcona-ites can get to / from downtown using the Jackson/Malkin intersection.

This change gives commercial traffic a better route to downtown that passes through already-industrial areas while at the same time it lets Strathcona along Prior become a residential area again. This commercial traffic is already using Clark, so this gives them an easier route into the downtown area from Clark.

Venables east of Railway would likely stay as a truck route because of the industrial needs along it.

Anyone needing to use Expo or Pacific will still use Terminal and Quebec for their routes.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by cabotp

So we build the Malkin Connector to Clarke Drive. Then eventually people will complain about the traffic again. So there will be a huge debate and people will want the connector expanded up the cut. Then they will want it expanded along the Grandview Hwy area. Then they will want it expanded in terms of the number of lanes.

That is why I'm against the idea of the Malkin Connector.

If thats the case, why haven't I heard about people demanding a new road be built through the Cut & connecting it to Terminal to make for a faster connection to Highway One?

Terminal is already there with a viaduct & is closer to the cut than the Malkin Connector would be. It could follow the alignment of the Expo Line guideway which already runs from the Cut & over the railway yards to Terminal north of Home Depot.

I'm sure many people in East Van would like to have 1st Ave cut off from the Terminal Viaduct & have that traffic relocated to a new freeway through the Cut & along an enlarged Grandview Highway to Highway One.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

If thats the case, why haven't I heard about people demanding a new road be built through the Cut & connecting it to Terminal to make for a faster connection to Highway One?

Terminal is already there with a viaduct & is closer to the cut than the Malkin Connector would be. It could follow the alignment of the Expo Line guideway which already runs from the Cut & over the railway yards to Terminal north of Home Depot.

I'm sure many people in East Van would like to have 1st Ave cut off from the Terminal Viaduct & have that traffic relocated to a new freeway through the Cut & along an enlarged Grandview Highway to Highway One.

The reason why you haven't heard people demanding that new road be built through the cut. Is because people don't want it.

I only used the Cut as an example in my last post. It is once you start down the road of building extra roads. Where does it ever stop. The Malkin connector doesn't have to expand, but the fear of it happening is always there. If you never build the Malkin connector then there is nothing to expand on.

Also who says the people who live around the Cut would want all the traffic that goes up 1st avenue.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by cabotp

...Also who says the people who live around the Cut would want all the traffic that goes up 1st avenue.

The difference is 1st Avenue is a residential street, while the Cut is not.

If Council really wanted to be neighbourhood friendly, the connector through the Cut would be built and then the uneeded capacity it would immediately free up on 1st could could be converted to bike lanes. But they don't have the stones to do that and they're idealogically blinkered against anything that would appear to make vehicle traffic easier.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

Only if you assume that those are the only consequences, financial or otherwise. What about the cost of buying and running more trains and buses? The cost of congestion, and the safety risks associated with dumping arterial traffic onto smaller, slower roads? Increased traffic on the bridges? You can't possibly argue that the cost of maintenance and reconfiguration is the only argument against tearing them down.

It's obvious that the more factors one includes the better approximation you'll get of the situation. My statement was that the financial argument is an argument that will be made by the numbers and the numbers alone. There's no reason for emotion to be involved.

Hanging onto something simply because you've sunk money into it is flawed reasoning, because it focuses purely on one side of the equation.

[cornholio]

I just hope a newspaper gets a hold of this because the residents of Vancouver would tare this ridiculous council a new one if they found out about this study. Unfortunately probably 95% of the people are not aware of what goes on in city hall unless it makes the news.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Patently false. They replaced a viaduct built in 1915, exclusive of the proposed freeway.

As such they provided an efficient flow of vehicle traffic into and out of downtown Vancouver, which Vision seems hellbent on wrecking for purely idealogoical reasons. As Metro has grown eastwards it stands to reason that these east-west connections are needed more than ever.

The 1972 viaducts were planned with the explicit intent of being onramps to a freeway. The 1968 Transportation Study states that the "Georgia viaduct replacement is in effect a western extension of the east-west freeway". This is fact.

The 1915 viaduct (single) was built to cross over the CPR railyards. Guess what -- that purpose is gone too.

I appreciate that you think there's lingering value, and I'm sure that value will be given due consideration in the study, but there's no reason to pretend these are sacred.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I just hope a newspaper gets a hold of this because the residents of Vancouver would tare this ridiculous council a new one if they found out about this study. Unfortunately probably 95% of the people are not aware of what goes on in city hall unless it makes the news.

This was on the news several days ago.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The difference is 1st Avenue is a residential street, while the Cut is not.

If Council really wanted to be neighbourhood friendly, the connector through the Cut would be built and then the uneeded capacity it would immediately free up on 1st could could be converted to bike lanes. But they don't have the stones to do that and they're idealogically blinkered against anything that would appear to make vehicle traffic easier.

While the Cut might be be right at house level. There are still people living along it. I'm sure they don't want to look out their windows and constantly see traffic going by below them. There is also the fact that the cut does come to an end. So are you saying everyone in that area would like to see more traffic than they already have.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The difference is 1st Avenue is a residential street, while the Cut is not.

If Council really wanted to be neighbourhood friendly, the connector through the Cut would be built and then the uneeded capacity it would immediately free up on 1st could could be converted to bike lanes. But they don't have the stones to do that and they're idealogically blinkered against anything that would appear to make vehicle traffic easier.

Well said. Although at this point I don't think a ~$60M Malkin connector is a good use of money, unless the Feds are paying for it.

And the $700k is a joke in light of recent budget issues.

If it ain't broke...

[Waders]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

This was on the news several days ago.

It was on CTV news http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local..._100619/20100619?hub=BritishColumbiaHome
Most of the people interviewed in the news video didn't like the idea tearing down the viaduct. One driver was complaining about the bike lane too.
Anyway there is a long way to go for this to be a reality.
Translink needs to give the approval and I think the funding issue would kill the proposal.
So the report would probably gather dust on bookshelf for decades.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by cabotp

While the Cut might be be right at house level. There are still people living along it. I'm sure they don't want to look out their windows and constantly see traffic going by below them. There is also the fact that the cut does come to an end. So are you saying everyone in that area would like to see more traffic than they already have.

And so what are the people who live along Prior St and 1st Ave? Chopped liver?

Those two are residential streets being forced to choke in all of this through traffic. Why is it acceptable to condemn them to the status quo?

And why condemn Hastings to an even worse fate? Doesn't that street have enough problems already?

Why not free up those three routes for bike traffic and LRT instead?

Why not the cut?

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

The 1972 viaducts were planned with the explicit intent of being onramps to a freeway. The 1968 Transportation Study states that the "Georgia viaduct replacement is in effect a western extension of the east-west freeway". This is fact.

The 1915 viaduct (single) was built to cross over the CPR railyards. Guess what -- that purpose is gone too.

I appreciate that you think there's lingering value, and I'm sure that value will be given due consideration in the study, but there's no reason to pretend these are sacred.

Even though the viaducts were intended to connect to the cancelled freeways (running N-S along Main St from the Harbour to the Fraser River, and E-W along Prior and Venables from Main St to Boundary), this doesn't mean that the section east of Main St can't be re-aligned to connect with Malkin Ave (and the Malkin Connnector to Clark) so these viaducts can be re-purposed to improve commercial traffic to & from downtown.

They're already in place so I'd rather spend $$s building the Malkin Connnector and the new connection from the viaducts to Malkin Ave than spend any money tearing them down just to spite drivers who need to get downtown.

As we've seen with the Burrard Bridge lane closure, vehicle traffic over the bridge didn't get reduced, but instead the lineups to get from Pacific Blvd to head south over the Burrard Bridge got longer. It appears those drivers haven't reached their pain threshold to make them give up driving over the Burrard Bridge.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

This change gives commercial traffic a better route to downtown that passes through already-industrial areas while at the same time it lets Strathcona along Prior become a residential area again. This commercial traffic is already using Clark, so this gives them an easier route into the downtown area from Clark.

That's a big benefit for Strathcona.
In addition, it would also allow the diversion of some traffic away from Main & Terminal so that the SEFC can develop into a residential area - if access to the Malkin Connector is convenient from 1st Ave. (Note that the location of the Malkin Connector between 1st Ave. and Hasting St. / Commissioner Street provides access to either east-west route - and doesn't funnel all traffic onto one route the way a Grandview Cut highway would function). It's a bit like how southbound Burrard Bridge traffic distributes or how southbound Cambie Bridge traffic distributes if it is headed to Richmond.

[racc]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

They're already in place so I'd rather spend $$s building the Malkin Connnector and the new connection from the viaducts to Malkin Ave than spend any money tearing them down just to spite drivers who need to get downtown.

Get your facts right. The point of replacing the Viaducts would be to increase park space and housing near downtown, not to spite drivers. The city could potentially gain tens of millions of dollars from the sale of the land for development.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Zassk

And so what are the people who live along Prior St and 1st Ave? Chopped liver?

Those two are residential streets being forced to choke in all of this through traffic. Why is it acceptable to condemn them to the status quo?

And why condemn Hastings to an even worse fate? Doesn't that street have enough problems already?

Why not free up those three routes for bike traffic and LRT instead?

Why not the cut?

I would love to see the traffic removed from Prior and 1st and Hasting. But I also don't feel that shifting it from one area to another is not the solution as well .

So it isn't that I want to condemn Prior and 1st and Hastings to the status quo.

What I'd like to see is LRT lines built along 1st and Hastings as well have a toll charge to drive in the city of Vancouver. Id rather look at ways of reducing traffic than just trying to move traffic.

All that would happen if you built the connector is people would notice that traffic is easier and thus more people would drive. So your back to where you started with traffic on Prior and 1st as well as traffic on the new connector. And everyone is complaining about the traffic and that we should build another connector.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by racc

Get your facts right. The point of replacing the Viaducts would be to increase park space and housing near downtown, not to spite drivers. The city could potentially gain tens of millions of dollars from the sale of the land for development.

Maybe that's what they are saying, but really, all that is in that area now is parks and empty land yet to be developed. There's even more empty land across false creek to the west of the OV. The city really shouldn't even think of touching the viaducts until those areas are fully built out and sold. Then maybe re-assess the area.

Every new condo built downtown means a certain number of trucks need to make it into the city to delivery "supplies" necessary for life.

Whether the viaducts get torn down is in the "anything is possible" file right now. Why the city is spending $700k to think about it in 2010 is stupid.