Northeast False Creek | Proposed

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I take it you're referring to this CAC policy item?

>"2.4 Capital renewal and/or capital renovation costs for any public benefits from policy 2.2 may only be considered as CACs to the extent it can be demonstrated that it provides an incremental benefit beyond what is currently provided to the public and is related to population and/or employment growth."<

Exactly. Thanks for saving me having to find it. So no lie - the City operates under certain restrictions, and replacing the viaducts without a comprehensive redevelopment of the area can only be funded from taxes. Sorry Vin, nobody but you made anything up.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

300 - 400mil will only be part of it. Wait another couple of years and inflation/additional work would push it up to 500mil. You can trust me on this.

Replacement and demolition cheaper than upgrades and maintenance?! What other lies these people can concoct next are simply beyond me.

Do you think the new Highline and road system will not need maintenance?

You forgot how to read again:

Originally Posted by Changing City

Neither would the City. That's why the $360m budget includes an $85m contingency.

That's the cost creep for removal/replacement taken care of. Being a brand new road network built to 2020+ seismic code standards, maintenance is unnecessary for obvious reasons.

Feel free to use your infinite expertise and explain why upgrades/maintenance wouldn't likewise increase to a higher figure (fully taxpayer-funded, no CACs), or why we wouldn't end up tearing the viaducts down anyway decades later when it's even more expensive.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Exactly. Thanks for saving me having to find it. So no lie - the City operates under certain restrictions, and replacing the viaducts without a comprehensive redevelopment of the area can only be funded from taxes. Sorry Vin, nobody but you made anything up.

And how is maintaining or replacing aging infrastructure NOT a public benefit may I ask? And where are the "certain restrictions" that you are talking about? If money from Wesbank's other developments so far away can be used to pool up as funds for an Art Chandelier under a bridge, I don't see how CACs cannot be used as reserve funds to fix an aging infrastructure in the same neighbourhood as the developments, which, by the way, would only cost 200 mil tops, compared to the 500 mil to remove them and rebuild. So yeah, please stop making things up.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Demolition, replacement, temporary traffic re-routing, service diversion and upgrades, all the design costs and an $85m contingency. Up to 2018 $24m of the $360m had already been spent on the design and engineering studies and consultancies, so it's less than $360m today.

The demolition and new structure is $96m. The new Pacific Boulevard (including new streets for hospital access) is $59m. Utility works, including upgraded and moved city and third-party utilities is $45m. Remediation of contamination under streets is $21m. Traffic detours and a temporary skateboard park is $10m. That all adds up to $231m. Add in design, planning and public engagement at $44m (with over half already spent) and an $85m contingency takes the total to $360m. Some is expected to be recovered from the private utilities who own the rerouted services, but that's not a given, so the full cost has been budgeted for now.

Obviously you are cherry picking and not showing the whole picture.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vanc...anuary-31-2018
According to a new City staff report, all of the new public amenities and spaces, social housing, and critical road infrastructure are expected to cost the City of Vancouver a total of $1.7 billion, which includes $360 million for the demolition of the viaducts and the construction of the new ground-level road network. This is a significant cost increase, as the City’s previous estimate in 2015 for the demolition and new road network was $200 million.

So what about the construction of the new bicycle/pedestrian viaduct and the expanded park space and amenities with the current viaducts taken down?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

I still don't know how to read.

Originally Posted by Vin

I still don't know how to read.

Let's try this again:

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

>"2.4 Capital renewal and/or capital renovation costs for any public benefits from policy 2.2 may only be considered as CACs to the extent it can be demonstrated that it provides an incremental benefit beyond what is currently provided to the public and is related to population and/or employment growth."<

CACs are for building something that's both better than what's already there (like a brand new viaduct), AND that creates new jobs/houses (like a brand new district). Maintaining existing viaducts does not qualify as either.

Originally Posted by Changing City

The demolition and new structure is $96m. The new Pacific Boulevard (including new streets for hospital access) is $59m. Utility works, including upgraded and moved city and third-party utilities is $45m. Remediation of contamination under streets is $21m. Traffic detours and a temporary skateboard park is $10m. That all adds up to $231m. Add in design, planning and public engagement at $44m (with over half already spent) and an $85m contingency takes the total to $360m. Some is expected to be recovered from the private utilities who own the rerouted services, but that's not a given, so the full cost has been budgeted for now.

Demolition and bike/pedestrian viaduct: $96M
New road network: $ 59M
Utilities: $45M
Soil remediation: $21M
Traffic/skate park: $10M
Total construction cost: $231M

Design and consultation: $44M
Cost creep: $85M
Total project cost: $360M

Lines up exactly with the DailyHive article. The NEFC park & amenities are completely independent of the viaducts no matter what happens.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Let's try this again:

CACs are for building something that's both better than what's already there (like a brand new viaduct), AND that creates new jobs/houses (like a brand new district). Maintaining existing viaducts does not qualify as either.

Demolition and bike/pedestrian viaduct: $96M
New road network: $ 59M
Utilities: $45M
Soil remediation: $21M
Traffic/skate park: $10M
Total construction cost: $231M

Design and consultation: $44M
Cost creep: $85M
Total project cost: $360M

Lines up exactly with the DailyHive article. The NEFC park is completely independent of the viaducts no matter what happens.

Source? Or are you just parroting Changing_City?

NEFC won't be so big if the viaducts are not torn down, so will be cheaper to build without altering the current lot.

We were talking about replacing the current viaducts after their lifespans are over. Why wouldn't that not be the equivalence of building new ones? Having the viaducts serve traffic flow better than piling all the traffic onto Pacific Blvd and congesting it after everything is built. Eventually rebuilding the viaducts would also cost way less, and that's the important point. By taking down the viaducts, the City is actually NOT improving the traffic situation, so by your own words, shouldn't the CACs be nullified?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Source? Or are you just parroting Changing_City?

NEFC won't be so big if the viaducts are not torn down, so will be cheaper to build without altering the current lot.

We were talking about replacing the current viaducts after their lifespans are over. Why wouldn't that not be building new ones? They are better than piling all the congesting traffic to Pacific Blvd and congesting it after everything is built. Eventually rebuilding the viaducts would also cost way less, and that's the important point. By taking down the viaducts, the City is actually NOT improving the traffic situation, so by your own words, shouldn't the CACs be nullified?

It's the same source that I'm quoting - the report to Council in 2018 that was approved, that authorized the continued work to replace the viaducts.

In addition to the $360 for the road/transportation works (including the new pedestrian/bike bridge) the benefits package anticipates $603m of affordable housing, $30m of childcare, $251m in parks and $194m of community facilities. The total bill for environmental remediation is estimated at $170m. That adds up to close to the $1.7 billion Daily Hive quoted.

As we know, the rezoning of the Plaza of Nations already offered $325m of benefits, including $128m of affordable housing, $10m of childcare, a $41.7m community centre and $25m ice rink, a public plaza worth $20m and $100.3m in cash to go towards the viaducts replacement and utility and infrastructure upgrades. There are more rezonings still being negotiated.

Now that the City are aware that there are significant seismic issues with the existing viaducts, their life is effectively over. The City can either spend at least $90m on patching them up or $120m to replace them - either option has to be funded from taxes. They can't sit back and ignore what they've now discovered. The option that's favoured is total replacement, as it would be to a higher seismic standard with a much longer life for a relatively small additional cost.

Removing the viaducts also generates the land that can be used to build the projects that generate the CACs that pay for the nice things that result. There are any number of other scenarios for development with the viaducts replaced, but they haven't been chosen.

Anyway, why do you care? In March last year you said, twice, that the viaducts aren't going to be replaced. 'Not going to happen'. So all this detailed planning will have been wasted, but the viaducts will still be there (subject to earthquakes, obviously).

[Jougho]

The COV is totally out of control with their spending. This cannot be sustained. What is wrong with these "Gold Plated Bureaucratic Politicians" with their gold plated pensions? They are totally somewhere out of reality. The City's budget I think has almost doubled in the last few years. Mark my words this will crash! Do they forget previous down cycles like the early 80's and after the financial meltdown felt after 2008? And relying on historic low interest rates! Where is an auditor Watchdog.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Jougho

The COV is totally out of control with their spending. This cannot be sustained. What is wrong with these "Gold Plated Bureaucratic Politicians" with their gold plated pensions? They are totally somewhere out of reality. The City's budget I think has almost doubled in the last few years. Mark my words this will crash! Do they forget previous down cycles like the early 80's and after the financial meltdown felt after 2008? And relying on historic low interest rates! Where is an auditor Watchdog.

Vancouver politicians get a pension? Link please. Here's the (newly approved) Auditor

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

NEFC won't be so big if the viaducts are not torn down, so will be cheaper to build without altering the current lot.

We were talking about replacing the current viaducts after their lifespans are over. Why wouldn't that not be the equivalence of building new ones? Having the viaducts serve traffic flow better than piling all the traffic onto Pacific Blvd and congesting it after everything is built. Eventually rebuilding the viaducts would also cost way less, and that's the important point. By taking down the viaducts, the City is actually NOT improving the traffic situation, so by your own words, shouldn't the CACs be nullified?

Less development space, less CACs. It's pretty straightforward.

No, we were talking about taking the viaducts down altogether right now and building a smaller one for non-motorists, not building new freeway ones forty years later. You're moving the goalposts again.
If one viaduct is, according to you, half a billion, then two viaducts in four decades is a billion plus. And if your doomsday traffic vision comes to pass, they'll be completely choked anyway. We should not be in the habit of throwing good money after bad.

Traffic has nothing to do with creating homes, jobs or amenities. That's the entire point of the CACs. And the policy (2.2) regarding transportation is subject to 2.1d:

(d) CACs should be prioritized to be located in the neighbourhood in which the rezoning takes place and/or serve the site. CACs may also be directed to public benefits that are located outside of the neighbourhood provided that there will be a demonstrable benefit to the community in which the rezoning takes place

The viaducts don't benefit Chinatown or International Village, who can't access it, nor Strathcona, whose residents don't want any traffic at all. They benefit people driving in from Burnaby and Coquitlam, and so do not qualify for any kind of developer contribution whatsoever.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's the same source that I'm quoting - the report to Council in 2018 that was approved, that authorized the continued work to replace the viaducts.

Specifically, this one. It's amazing what one can find if they actually want to learn.

For the record, the open house tonight had nothing in the way of upset motorists - quite the opposite. The most controversy was one cyclist who wanted to save $30 million by scrapping the pedestrian portion of the Dunsmuir connection.

[Vin]

And you guys just trust this City blindly when there are others who think otherwise...

City of Vancouver: "The removal of the viaducts will only cause a very slight increase in traffic wait time."
Some forumers: "All hail CoV, your words are golden"

2020 Report:

Vancouver ranked most congested city in Canada: study
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vanc...y-canada-study

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Less development space, less CACs. It's pretty straightforward.

No, we were talking about taking the viaducts down altogether right now and building a smaller one for non-motorists, not building new freeway ones forty years later. You're moving the goalposts again.
If one viaduct is, according to you, half a billion, then two viaducts in four decades is a billion plus. And if your doomsday traffic vision comes to pass, they'll be completely choked anyway. We should not be in the habit of throwing good money after bad.

Traffic has nothing to do with creating homes, jobs or amenities. That's the entire point of the CACs. And the policy (2.2) regarding transportation is subject to 2.1d:



The viaducts don't benefit Chinatown or International Village, who can't access it, nor Strathcona, whose residents don't want any traffic at all. They benefit people driving in from Burnaby and Coquitlam, and so do not qualify for any kind of developer contribution whatsoever.

And you naively think that the removal of the viaducts actually free up a lot of space for development? Talking about moving goalposts, you were the one who said CACs should be used to enhance something. I just showed you that tearing down the viaducts does not enhance anything, with traffic congestion likely to get much worse. Please don't tell me that the City has been doing an excellent job in managing traffic as they clearly have not been, as per the report above. Stalled traffic pollutes the air way more than constantly moving traffic. The viaducts free up traffic around international village, the stadiums and the entertainment neighbourhood so that it is much easier for vehicles to access those places.

Less land to build buildings? Then go taller, or narrow the existing roads to create more space for development. If the City only cares about the residents of Strathcona on the backs of the rest of the population in Vancouver, maybe the rest of us should stop paying taxes to them.

If you hate freeways so much, then why don't you petition Highway One to be turned into the world's longest "Highline"?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

And you guys just trust this City blindly when there are others who think otherwise...

City of Vancouver: "The removal of the viaducts will only cause a very slight increase in traffic wait time."
Some forumers: "All hail CoV, your words are golden"

2020 Report:

The City acknowledges traffic is likely to take a bit longer to get where its going. This is not the end of the world. The TomTom thing comes up every year. It's not for the city - it's the whole of Metro Vancouver.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

And you naively think that the removal of the viaducts actually free up a lot of space for development? Talking about moving goalposts, you were the one who said CACs should be used to enhance something. I just showed you that tearing down the viaducts does not enhance anything, with traffic congestion likely to get much worse. Please don't tell me that the City has been doing an excellent job in managing traffic as they clearly have not been, as per the report above. Stalled traffic pollutes the air way more than constantly moving traffic. The viaducts free up traffic around international village, the stadiums and the entertainment neighbourhood so that it is much easier for vehicles to access those places.

Less land to build buildings? Then go taller, or narrow the existing roads to create more space for development. If the City only cares about the residents of Strathcona on the backs of the rest of the population in Vancouver, maybe the rest of us should stop paying taxes to them.

If you hate freeways so much, then why don't you petition Highway One to be turned into the world's longest "Highline"?

Simply comparing the before and after pictures shows that removing the viaducts frees up half the Concord site and the Main Street blocks, or half the current developable area. That's an indisputable net gain.

You showed nothing. You gave an article from Vancouver's BuzzFeed knockoff about a "study" that's been repeatedly debunked (especially on this forum) for flawed methodology. Clickbait that confirms your bias is still clickbait.
Reality: we have the same traffic levels downtown that we did in '65, and accessing Tinseltown or the stadiums by car/bike/foot isn't "easy" by any stretch of the imagination.

Narrow the roads? Make it even harder to access the NEFC area - and divert more traffic onto the viaducts - for two lanes' worth of space? You're arguing against yourself here.
And now you're comparing a useless half-mile freeway to nowhere.... to the TransCanada. Uh-huh.

[WarrenC12]

You two are doing noble work trying to convince Vin of the facts, but it's often a losing battle.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You two are doing noble work trying to convince Vin of the facts, but it's often a losing battle.

Vin will undoubtedly respond with a comprehensive rebuttal that combines carmageddon gridlock with a denial that there's anything wrong with the existing structures, and a belief that it'll cost at least $500m to replace them.

Adding bike lanes on Burrard and reconfiguring the approaches suggests the City engineers have a pretty good understanding of traffic flows these days. There will obviously be quite a bit of disruption during the conversion from the viaducts to a surface road, but once it's done there's a far better grid for moving around - although slower because junctions will have traffic lights.

The past 20 years have shown we can add a lot of additional people and not add to traffic too much, if at all. We're currently adding a lot more jobs, but five of the new offices are replacing parkades, so there's no additional parking, so probably very few, if any additional vehicles. In future developers don't even have to provide parking Downtown. As long as we can continue to enhance transit, walking and biking facilities the current plans for Downtown transportation seem pretty good, unless you think that Downtown should somehow have freeflowing highway conditions. Then you'll be out of luck.

The logic of replacing the entire viaducts for $120m, or building a short section down to Pacific, reconfiguring the existing surface street and building a relatively lightweight but seismically designed bike and walk viaduct for slightly less seems absolutely logical. Everything else that's being done is utility upgrades, relocations and polluted land remediation. Those will have to be done for any development of the area, so there's no saving on those costs if the viaducts stay. (Replacing them would still require the land to be remediated to contemporary standards).

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You two are doing noble work trying to convince Vin of the facts, but it's often a losing battle.

So says the one who's is also highly biased to have the viaducts destroyed. Very objective indeed.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

So says the one who's is also highly biased to have the viaducts destroyed. Very objective indeed.

Go back to 2012 and you'll see I was against the viaduct demolition. But I changed my mind.

Also, posters here are using published numbers. We can all wait and see what the final costs are, but you are pulling numbers out of your ass.

[Tetsuo]

Yeah it has been interesting to see how the mood on the forum regarding the viaducts removal have shifted