A very well-argued piece by Kenneth Chan on Daily Hive.
The article is divided into several sections, with subtitles:
1. A new barrier: a ground-level eight-lane road replacement
2. A plan that is detrimental to the city’s cycling and pedestrian goals
3. A new steep wedge between B.C. Place and Rogers Arena
4. “The viaducts are an eyesore”
5. What’s wrong with the idea of excess road capacity?
6. The removal plan’s cost: a $200 million beautification project
Among the points that caught my eye was #4, and the statement that the city had done little thinking about how to make use of the space beneath the viaducts:
The land under the viaducts is not wasted land; the area is under-utilized due to a severe lack of imagination from the municipal government. The viaducts provide sheltered areas for our wet climate and the skatepark currently located underneath the viaducts at Quebec Street are examples of what can be built underneath.
It could accommodate civic plazas, park space, night markets, and even restaurants and shopping malls. The spaces between the viaduct structures could also be an opportunity for infill tower development, with commercial and offices on the lower levels and residential on the upper levels.
He notes Granville Island, in the shadow of the enormous Granville Bridge, as a prime example, and includes a number of photos from other cities of repurposed space framed by outdated infrastructure.
Check it out! It’s a classic ‘cat among the pigeons’ piece.
Kenneth Chan is both more eloquent and thorough than I have been in trying to make similar points to City officials. My primary concern is what will happen to the only two north-south 2-way streets (Main and Abbott) when more than 40k vehicles are almost literally “dropped” down to grade. (For some idiotic reason, Carrall Street is proposed to be closed to traffic, thus removing a key feature of a grid – redundancy.)
Argued like a car driver who wants to see more cars. As the horrific crash at Seymour and Davie yesterday clearly demonstrates, we need to have a serious conversation about eliminating general purpose, single occupant vehicles from much of our downtown core.
Downtown traffic is in decline. Let’s steepen the curve.
To have killed both passengers in a modern luxury SUV, the guy had to have been going way faster than 50km/h. Probably 90 or 100km/h. Agencies test small overlap crashes at 60km/h and the damage is generally way less than you can see on that Lexus.
I may as well use a extreme mountain biking fatality from the North Shore as an example of cycling not being safe…
Even at 50-60km/h pedestrians hit by a car are more likely to be dead than not.
If speed limits in downtown are reduced to 20km/h it would be a different story.
Both the car passengers died. The peds got thwacked by the falling tree.
In this specific case yes. Overall most serious injuries and deaths in Vancouver are pedestrians hit by drivers.
(1) The viaducts don”t have to remain ugly. With development on either side and the middle they would look like any other part of downtown. Each building could have 2 entrances one for the viaduct the other at ground level.Parking located under the viaduct. (2) Reducing existing capacity leads to gridlock for cars & buses. (2 Extend North Shore buses to Main street .
I agree with him about the 8 lanes. Blech.
The 8 lanes is just to appease those who can’t see beyond their windshield. It can easily be reduced in future when traffic volumes continue their steady decline.
The Re:Connect competition had lots of interesting ideas for utilising the space under there. Adding in a projector and outdoor movie screen was my favourite. Strangely enough, none of those ideas got any traction, even though implementation wouldn’t be pricey.
The current plans also effectively axed the plans for the Georgia Staircase which had been on the books prior to the viaduct removal being a thing.
The other thing I’ve always found interesting is how disinterested the city is about programming the “park” area near the letdown. It’s been there since the 1970s, and all they’ve managed is to make is a grass field? The half block not used doesn’t even have a name.
I haven’t read the whole article, but skimmed it, so correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think he really addresses the issue of the cost to seismically upgrade the viaducts, rather he just brushes over it. When people talk about the cost of this project, this tends to be the big elephant in the room that they’re forgetting. Take it into account and suddenly the short-term expenditure makes long-term financial sense.
Indeed. The “keep the viaducts” argument often seems to ignore that this is not a zero-cost option.
I also noticed that at one point the article mentions the effects of induced demand in regard to the Massey Bridge, but later asks “What’s wrong with extra traffic capacity?” You already answered that yourself…
$48M isn’t that expensive for a seismic rehab which will extend the lifespan by 40 years.
That’s about $0.10 per car that drives over it for that period of time.
Where’s the subway east out of downtown to get people out of cars onto RAPID transit ?
It would revitalize E-Van and allow high density along Hastings, and ease N-Shore traffic congestion if extended via Second Narrows to Lonsdale Quay and then to W-Van’s Park Royal, Ambleside and Dunadrave. That is grossly missing in the 2040 Transportation Plan. https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2016/03/12/2040-transportation-plan-update-required/
Kobe has a fantastic shopping street under the JR line from Sannomiya to Motomachi. It allows small vendors to ply their wares to shoppers in a weather-protected environment. Worth a look in thinking about possibilities if the viaducts don’t come down.
I agree the at-grade replacement road for this will be a horrible environment, no matter how much landscaping there is.
As far as congestion is concerned, it makes no difference whether there’s a viaduct that’s only 1 km long, or a surface “super road”. The traffic volume will still be the same, we are just re-arranging where you are stuck in traffic.
If the Malkin Connector is built, traffic flow may actually improve. And I would take it one step further and re-introduce the Kingsway Connector plan in conjunction with a new Pacific Blvd. That would greatly alleviate the Main and Terminal chokepoint and also open the possibility of dedicated bus lanes. Buses along that stretch of Main go barely faster than walking speed.
The biggest impact of the viaduct removal isn’t traffic related though, its urban renewal related. Bringing in new residents is crucial to the revival of the DTES and the viaduct lands are expected to be home to 4000 to 5000 new residents – right in the DTES. I foresee the DTES becoming Vancouver’s greatest neighbourhood, and one of the greatest neighbourhoods in North America. So for me, the sooner the viaducts come down, the better.
What I’ve heard is that the new surface road will have greater capacity than the current viaducts. In addition, there will be the possibility of getting off of it when there is heavy traffic on a side street instead of the current situation where you’re stuck on the viaduct.
So for motorists it’ll be an improvement. The trick is to not “induce” more people to drive because of it.
Subsidized roads,bridges & parking is what (induces) people to drive when it is not necessary
Currently, there’s redundancy if Pacific Blvd is closed – for the Vancouver Marathon, the Run for the Cure, or the Vancouver Sun Run – since the viaducts (or one of them) remain open.
With the one super-road, there’s less flexibility.
The Kingsway Connector is now impossible because the City just announced it will build social housing on the site acquired for that road (2221 Main St.)
http://vancouversun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-senior-governments-should-get-behind-vancouvers-social-housing-plans
Yeah i had heard about that on ssp. I was hoping they would change their minds about that. Kingsway connector is an important piece of road infrastructure for quickly growing city core imo.
You’d honestly think some people aren’t aware that MV traffic into downtown has been declining for twenty years.
To follow up on those thoughts…
As it is now, Main street is already very congested during rush hour. Moving forward in time we will see the viaduct lands built out, a new St. Paul’s hospital, more development around SE False Creek and NE False Creek, more light office development in the Mt. Pleasant industrial lands, and more residential development along Main street stretching from 16th Ave right to the waterfront. So there will be much more strain on an already busy Main street. A relief valve will be needed in the form of a Kingsway Connector. If not that then a subway line running down Main street.
Has anything changed over the past year possibly, since Kenneth Chan’s article was published? Not sure why it’s going a bit viral now all of a sudden…
It’s time for Council to back away from this costly cosmetic project, after all how can the City request provincial and federal funding support for projects like the Malkin Connector to the new hospital or the Broadway Line when on the other hand they are contemplating trashing the Viaducts with 40 years of good service life remaining? How does this behavior demonstrate good stewardship of existing infrastructure? How does this behavior demonstrate sustainable development leadership?
We need to understand pronouncements of what is ugly for what they are;
ugly pronouncements!
Let’s complete the development of this area as we always have planned based on existing (the Viaducts) and new infrastructure now in place. ( Pacific Blvd, Expo Blvd, Carrall St, Abbott St. all with street lighting, intersection signals, storm water lines, sewer lines, water lines, power systems, communication systems and all of which is only twenty some years old).
I agree that the viaducts should stay up – look at Westbank’s plans (touted by the City) for the areas under the Howe St. viaduct and Granville St. Bridge.
The north and south ends of the Cambie Bridge also have useful areas under the bridge.
The real reason the are hasn’t been developed is because its in a “bad” area of town, close to the DTES. Just look at historic property values at Citygate (not current crazy market prices).
A massive park down there will do more to isolate east and west than unite them. small retail buildings under the viaducts would provide a good pedestrian connection from the stadium to Main Street and Chinatown. A big dark empty park (littered with needles?) won’t do that.
I’m looking forward to the viaducts coming down. What is being proposed to replace them, and the improved circulation for all modes, will greatly improve the area. It doesn’t matter whether they are ugly or not, they are disfunctional.
Joking again are you? How many times do we need to build something before you deem it functional? Forty-thousand daily users disagree!
The argument I presented is that the City needs to demonstrate responsible stewardship of taxpayer investments if they expect to receive support from the Province and the Feds for transportation projects. Removing the Viaducts when they can easily be upgraded is an idea that would fail to pass any outside third party Victoria or Ottawa analysis!
Enough with trying to satiate the ever ravenous appetites of legacy Planners and their cultish followers hoping for fat contracts. City infrastructure belongs to the taxpayers.
As such the City needs a referendum on the question of;
“Shall we go backwards?”
No joke. The viaducts are short segments of freeway connected only to city streets at each end. Emergency vehicles won’t use them because of the concern over being trapped. They chop up the ground level so that logical grids can’t be built. They block light. The ramps take up space without providing a return in terms of throughput. They compromise what is going to be a much better design for the city and residents, at the end of Georgia. They need seismic upgrading, but that investment only delays the inevitable, removing them totally. Taking them down can be funded by the recovered real estate, so isn’t money out of pocket.
In short, good riddance..
Jeff (1) If emergency vehicles won’t use the viaduct for fear of being trapped . Why do they use freeways ? The exits are much further apart (2) Remove main street exit ramp & extend to Terminal Ave via Saint Pauls with Apartments on both sides(3) Extend North Shore bus to VCC / Clarke
On the North Shore the ambulances don’t seem to use the highway much. Not sure if that’s a policy but they are usually on local roads east-west.
But then it would be, as it is now, a matter of opinion what defines “going backwards” and what defines going forwards.
Even if emergency vehicles don’t use the viaducts, the viaducts divert other vehicles from the routes that the emergency vehicles do use.
It’s called redundancy or distributing the load over a network of roads.
Without the viaducts, those emergency vehicles will be on the same road as everyone else.
The decision to remove the viaducts is pure political theatre. “See Gregor slay the evil highway!” As if this city doesn’t have more pressing needs for the $100+ million.
No room for reasonably priced vendors and cafes, as described above and by Kenneth Chan, in the bases and alcoves of other similar buildings around the world.
The glitzy condos and perfect landscaping is beginning to resemble other resorts, like Miami and Dubai.
http://images.dailyhive.com/20160513092553/georgia-street-ramp-vancouver-viaducts-1.jpg
I’ve often thought that these useful but apparently unloved structures lies partly in the name: viaducts. If they were called Georgia and Dunsmuir “Bridges” would we still feel the urgency in demolishing them? Others have noted that we’ve developed quite well next to other bridges in this city, so why not here?
BTW, there will still be two highly visible and ugly elevated viaducts there when all is said and done – SkyTrain and the new (but so far not shown) bike viaduct. And a partial third one as well, serving the existing residential cluster atop CostCo.
I am sure that the proposed pedestrian and cycling ramp will be a thing of beauty!
Arno – you say ramp, i say viaduct. Words do matter. Either way, it will be a highly visible and – I think – intrusive structure.
I think some of the aesthetic criticisms of the current viaducts are because they’re clunky and of weathered stained concrete.
I have no idea what the walking and cycling ramp will be made of, that might not have been decided yet but I ask both of you, what style of structure would be appealing there?
If they don’t have to carry trucks they can be much more slender and light, perhaps even wood – a showcase for our local wood engineering skills.
I’ve heard of an idea to have the future row of buildings in the current line of the Dunsmuir Viaduct provide aerial courtyards at descending elevations so the bike/ped bridges would just leapfrog down to grade near Quebec.
I’d like to see the Calgary Peace Bridge used to prompt some design ideas. Covering it would be one idea.
There’s that Cycle Snake in Copenhagen.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2011/12/innovative-elevated-cycle-track-in.html
Then this bridge in Enschede, Netherlands.
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/cycle-bridge-enschede/
Both are fairly attractive.
Frank, I have seen active brdges/viaducts which are breathtakingly beautiful. Here are some examples, two of which are local. City should do a design competition.
https://goo.gl/photos/SaknYFoxyJM6iMas7
This link should show 6 pictures:
https://goo.gl/photos/Pby7iQj7dCYpcRtaA
Removal of the viaducts will cost the City plenty, which is why there are never any updates on the progress of this project. Dream on all you like but the fact is there are no agreements with affected landowners, nothing that would ever be remotely palatable to taxpayers. Don’t forget this wasteful proposal is the work of Landless Legacy Planners. Time to see how we can live with these “bridges” as Frank calls them.