Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Viaduct study passes, reduced to $300,000 cost

June 24th, 2010 · 45 Comments

People are anxious about the idea of making radical changes to the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts, an idea that appeared suddenly last fall and is moving ahead as of today. Vision councillors agreed to fund a study to look at options, although they limited the public complaints about the $700,000 cost by saying they’re only going to start with a first $300,000 phase and then council will decide whether to go further after results from the early studies are in.

As I note in my Globe story in tomorrow’s paper, taking a lane from the Burrard Bridge was one thing. Removing one of the three main commuter routes in the tangled road mess east and north of False Creek is another. The viaducts are one of the several examples around the city of Vancouver’s ambivalent attitude to car traffic over the years. Like the Champs Elysees-width Pacific Boulevard, the grand sweep of Burrard Bridge on the south end, and Georgia Street, the viaducts are a stretch of road that looks like a freeway but that runs ends up funneling drivers into regular non-freeway-style streets later on.

As I noodled around among pieces of historic research, it became apparent to me that the east/north corner of False Creek has always been a particular mess, a tangle of small roads that were part of the historic communities there, alternating with chunks of big road as various councils have tried to create solutions for commuter traffic. (The Columbia-Quebec connector, that weird strip of highway road that runs in front of Science World, is another effort to fix the mess, also built in 1972 like the viaducts.)

While people are worried about the impact of tearing down or re-routing the viaducts (i.e. more cars trolling through the small streets of Gastown and Chinatown), the reality is that was never a very well-designed commuter route. At the eastern end, it dumps traffic onto Venables, which runs alongside Strathcona single-family houses, and that it eventually dead-ends at Victoria.

For those who think that removing or rejigging the viaducts would someone free up huge tracts of land that Vancouver could sell for mucho dollars — no such luck, I’m hearing. While the one block east of Main, where the ramps are, would be an attractive site, the land west of Main under the viaducts is super-contaminated. It would cost a fortune to build anything there.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • mpm

    Ever since this debate started, I have always wondered at the logic that removing the viaducts would ‘open’ up the neighbourhood and make it ‘whole’. There is no logic to that statement when you look at how Prior street runs on the border of the neighbourhood and south of Prior it is industry. So they want to reunite housing with industry??

    If they remove the ramps, then what, more condos, maybe a small park. Where will the traffic go? Pender, Hastings and Cordorva better be ready for a doubling of traffic.

  • Tiktaalik

    Re the Globe article: Charles Gauthier sort of answers his own question doesn’t he?

    Encouraging folks to take transit (or bike) is part of the justification for the entire exercise.

  • Keith

    The viaducts may prove their worth, if there were some sort of emergency requiring evacuation of the downtown.

  • spartikus

    I love the headline on the CKNW story of this: “Don’t viaducts have historic significance?”

    Was it a vintage year for cement? Have they been blessed by the Pope?

  • david hadaway

    So we’re short of money but this is so urgent that it’s got to go ahead immediately.

    These days I apply a “Bloedel” test to all city expenditure, this scores about 2, measured in the number of years it would have kept the conservatory open.

    Actually I’d love to see those things gone but this needs to be part of a comprehensive plan for the whole urban wasteland up to Clark Drive. This, I’m quite confident, is just money down the toilet.

  • MB

    Traffic management is not the only issue here. This is as much or more about land use and human-scaled urbanism.

    Seoul removed a honking big freeway right through it’s centre and restored a river that it covered, and created a very popular park. They even left a couple of crumbling freeway support columns sticking up out of the river to symbolize the decay of fundamentally anti-human urban design.

    http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysCheonggye.html

    Here are more case studies of removing urban freeways, three from North America:

    http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/07/06/huh-4-cases-of-how-tearing-down-a-highway-can-relieve-traffic-jams-and-help-save-a-city/

  • Charles Gauthier

    Eliminating this key access into and out of downtown altogether and telling people to switch to transit when the system is woefully lacking seems to be a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately, not much is going to change any time soon re. transit. Read this story that was in this week’s Georgia Straight:
    http://www.straight.com/article-330393/vancouver/translinks-draft-threeyear-plan-freezes-transit-service-hours

    Yes, biking to work is an option for some people but not everyone. I believe the City of Vancouver’s own data indicates that the majority of commuter cyclists live within 10 km
    of their destination.

    Just to be clear, downtown employees switched to transit for the duration of the Olympics because there was 30% more service. That all evaporated on March 1, 2010. Very disappointing for many of them who were enjoying the experience and the enhanced level of service.

  • MB

    This is an exemplary study by Jeff Kenworthy on the phenomenon of disappearing traffic after major freeway closures, amongst other things. He addresses traffic management as well as land use and public benefits of converting road space to public amenities.

    http://www.sfu.ca/city/PDFs/Presentations/Kenworthy%20VACC%20-%20June%2028,%202006.pdf

  • Chris Keam

    “Yes, biking to work is an option for some people but not everyone. I believe the City of Vancouver’s own data indicates that the majority of commuter cyclists live within 10 km
    of their destination. ”

    This is no doubt accurate, especially as we know that the median distance for Vancouver vehicle commuters is 7.6 km.

    http://www.vancouverfoundationvitalsigns.ca/?q=node/17

    Transportation costs account for 19% of household expenses in Vancouver. (same link)

  • Tiktaalik

    It’s my experience that in many situations people will never change away from undesired behaviour unless you start taking away options. Therefore destroying the viaduct and working with the aftermath with regard to there possibly being not enough transit funding is the best decision. It could be tough to work through but I don’t see change happening any other way.

  • Dan Cooper

    A problem I see with the, “demolish it and they will stop coming (or come on the bus)” argument is that different people are making the decisions. The C of V (if I understand correctly) controls the fate of the viaduct, while Translink – with planning power in a board appointed by Gordon Campbell and friends, and its budget approved by the mayors’ council – makes decisions about bus service. And as noted above, Translink has already said there will be no increase in bus service at least until 2013 – though they do plan to increase fares! Certainly in other areas – schools anyone? – the Provincials have shown they are perfectly willing to tell local government authorities to go get stuffed, especially if, in the opinion of the Minister involved, the locals caused their own problems.

  • jjim

    I love the person who said if there was a big emergency that the viaducts would prove there useful ness. The council did a study and found that they would actually topple over in the event of a earthquake so I really don’t think they will be doing any such thing. I think many people are forgetting that there is a massive network of roads that exist under these viaducts that don’t get used to much so by removing these viaducts the cars could better utilize the network that already exist. I think we totally should remove these relicks and thus improve the city further. I think this is the last piece of a period of the citys history that does not fit with the citys vision for the future. The world is changing and the city id getting ready for a post oil worl in the future.

  • MB

    My reading of this is that most options do not indicate a total severing of road traffic between Main St and downtown south of Pender and north of Expo Blvd. A slower surface routing may be provided.

    Surface roads will no doubt afford more street-oriented businesses to be built in the flats, as well as decent sidewalks, bike routes and green space. That is, a much more pleasant and economically enriching experience would be provided that is not possible with acres of cracking, filthy concrete suspended in the sky over derelict land.

  • Charles Gauthier

    “It’s my experience that in many situations people will never change away from undesired behaviour unless you start taking away options.”

    The problem with this point of view is that if you make downtown less accessible and increase travel times/congestion by removing the viaducts, companies may decide to locate out of the downtown and to less transit intensive parts of Metro Vancouver where their employees largely come from. In a city where commercial property owners who represent 8% of the total taxpayers pay a ratio of 4.55 to 1 in property taxes vis-a-via residential property owners, we can ill afford to have companies relocate because downtown is inaccessible and congested.

    Until transit improves significantly a road diet will only starve downtown of its economic vitality and future prosperity.

  • OOPS! They Did It Again.

    Charles,

    I believe that is PRECISELY what this council has in mind—starve out business and hand over the commercial buildings for redevelopment to the developers.we have heard that developers are not interested in putting up commwercial. CoV seem to want to let Dianne Watts run all the commercial stuff.

    Vancouver is heading in the direction of resort town. But like all one industry towns, god help us if the tourism or real estate markets take a tumble.

    I just hope that Bob Rennie ensures that all the washer/dryers are in working order. A granite countertop in every pot!

  • Richard

    It is always a good idea to ask the question “Would we build it now?”. I think for most people, the answer would be no. Then envision the housing, parks and other amenities that could be on the site and then ask “Would we tear down housing and destroy parks to build new viaducts to downtown?” . Again, the answer would likely be no.

    Replacing the viaducts with housing, parks and businesses would further enhance Vancouver’s reputation as a green, liveable city that is willing to take on challenges and show leadership. The economic value of Vancouver’s reputation should not be underestimated especially after it was on display to the world at the Olympics.

    Agreed that improved transit is needed. Replacing the viaduct would increase transit ridership and improve the business case for expanded transit.

  • jesse

    So… is there truth behind this land being unusable for development, whether it be commercial, residential or otherwise?

    Looking at how close buildings are to the other bridges entering downtown, and what I therefore assume could be built in the gaps close to the viaducts, I’m not convinced there are much land savings to be had by tearing the viaducts down, perhaps 2 city blocks doing a quick visual estimate.

    It seems allowing slightly increased densification in other areas of the city would be more straightforward and have the same effect in easing the city’s apparent lack of housing. This is assuming developing the land is the main priority and not removing the viaducts for some magical improved access to and from downtown. If the latter, it sounds a lot like “voodoo city planning” to me, on first pass.

  • voony

    Spartikus mentions CKNW story entitled “Don’t viaducts have historic significance?”

    Yes they have!

    Not the viaducts alone, but all the area, including the Skytrain viaducts twisting below the Georgia viaducts and the Science World:

    That is symptomatic of the “futurist” urban environment we were promised in the 60 and 70’s.

    For this reason those urban structures have historic significance and deserve to be preserved like bunker of the second world war: they are witness of a certain period.

    That says, removing the bridge above main is certainly a good step forward:
    It will no affect the road capacity access to downtown, but will certainly improve the Main street environment (and so improve the business, there)

    By the way, for a DT business, to rely on motorist access is certainly not a winning proposition, All DownTown having adapted to car have felt in dereliction.
    DT shopper come for the DT experience you can’t find in suburb shopping Mall and if access need to be good, it doesn’t necessary need to be by SOV….
    also, Chris Kim mention interesting figure on people spending 19% on transportation: it is basically 19% not going into local business.

  • Tiktaalik

    @Charles Gauthier: Considering the tax situation it already seems like a no brainer for companies to move out of downtown. Are they moving away in droves or are they staying around for for other reasons even with a punishing taxes?

    Perhaps it’s just my personal experience that makes me feel like businesses will stick around for all the other benefits of being in downtown. After all with my own company there was a bidding war between major corporations over the space that my company currently resides in. Prior to us getting our space I recall having a conversation with the CEO and though he couldn’t find any(!) ideal spot downtown (we ended up settling for something not perfect) it seemed like going outside of downtown was a complete non-starter, despite there being many non-Vancouverite employees, including a founder commuting from Delta.

    I think the amenities of downtown Vancouver, in addition to great transportation links and the fact that many workers actually live in Vancouver make situating a business in Vancouver a super attractive prospect.

  • Chris Keam

    “also, Chris Kim (sic) mention interesting figure on people spending 19% on transportation: it is basically 19% not going into local business.”

    Well, not exactly. Automobiles need servicing by local mechanics, are sold locally, and the entire industry contributes to the local economy in some fashion, esp. when you consider how much the media relies on auto advertising to finance its operations. To indulge in a little black humour, frankly the reliance on cars for transportation keeps plenty of emergency responders busy. (And before you flame me for insensitivity, I will mention that the last time I counted up all the people I knew or was acquainted with who had been killed in car accidents, I stopped at two dozen. I am well aware of the pain and suffering the current transportation system inflicts on us all)

    If cars disappeared tomorrow it would create significant economic challenges for the local economy. The sooner we embrace the inevitable reduction in auto use, the more manageable the shift will be. Individuals, business associations, and gov’ts at all levels have a huge role to play in facilitating a smooth transition from car-dependency, and it won’t be achieved by trying to maintain the status quo.

  • Richard

    A study from Texas indicated that that non-automotive expenditures have a regional economic impact that is $219,000 per million dollars greater than automobile expenditures. With no oil or automotive manufacturing to speak of, I would expect even a greater economic benefit here as people move away from travelling by automobile.

    While there obviously will be winners and losers, the net gain for the local economy would be great. Even car dealers would likely come out ahead as they stand to profit handsomely as they redevelop their lots into high density housing.

  • voony

    to give some perspective. According to http://www.vtpi.org/ecodev.pdf

    Regional Economic Impacts of $1 Million Expenditure in Texas.

    when on Automobile Expenditures: it generates $307,000 and 8.4 jobs
    when on Non automotive expenditures: it generates
    $526,000 and 17 jobs
    When on Transit Expenditures: it generates $1,200,000 and 62.2 jobs

    …

  • Sean Bickerton

    For those interested, I’ve posted my remarks to City Council on the viaduct study on my blog, which you can reach just by clicking on my name.

    Brent Toderian confirmed that the city planning department is looking at this area in a holistic way. Given the massive development already approved and about to take place, this study is an opportunity to forge it all into a comphrehensive area plan that enhances transit options, better connects this area to the downtown street grid, provides more recreational opportunities for youth, increases the number of jobs and replaces dead streets with life.

  • Bill Lee

    The first Georgia viaduct was built in 1915.

    You can still see where it came out to Main if you look west on Georgia and Main.

    Old, iron and steel, the Georgia viaduct was replaced by the “New” Georgia Viaduct as well as a new Dunsmuir viaduct to create one way roads on each was built much later in 1972.

    Somehow no one of the TEAM-lite/Vision ever needs to go east of the downtown and leave the centre.
    This viaduct is a benefit for South Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Maple Ridge and so on to the east of Vancouver city as the servants don’t live in Point Grey or Shaughessy any more.

    Once again the City works only for the benefit of the Municipality of Point Grey, and those maids and gardeners can get into Vancouver any way they can.

  • Richard

    The viaducts run adjacent to a rapid transit line with a capacity of 50,000 people per hour that serves East Van, Burnaby and assuming the Evergreen Line goes ahead, Coquitlam. That is more people per hour than the viaducts carry a day. It is hard to make a case that people don’t have options. For Maple Ridge, Coquitlam, and PoCo, there is also the Westcoast Express.

  • OOPS! They Did It Again.

    Interesting comments. I would like to point out that at this time TransLink has enough service issues as it is. Forty percent of the people heading downtown already use transit–many coming from other munis like Surrey,Burnaby, etc in order to staff the service jobs in downtown Vancouver. That 40 percent eats up a lot of available capacity on the system (Broadway to UBC corridor is the next busiest area). That leaves a whole lot of people who need to get downtown some way and who, at this point, cannot get there due to a full transit system, wherw capacity and service hours are huge issues.Someone (Mayors Council, the province??) has to inject a lot more money into TransLink if you want the dream of enough public transit picking up that leftover 60 percent of potential downtown ridership.
    I will leave the talk of road pricing and tolls, which I support, for another thread.

    Here is a thought: the city centre needs multiple tranpsortation modes (car, transit, walk, bike) in order to function well and get people into the core.There is no “one mode” fits all for this situation.
    If the viaducts are not there to handle some of that car load, how do you propose that people get downtown?

    Either you have a vibrant commercial downtown that coexists with condos or you pack all your commercial enterprise up and send it to Surrey.

    Sorry guys, at this point bike culture is not enough to warrant tearing down the viaducts.Totally impractical for too many people.

  • Richard

    @OOPS!

    Funny, the same arguments were being used back in the 60’s to justify building freeways downtown. Guess what, downtown is vibrant because massive freeways were not built. To think that the viaducts that are used by only a small fraction of the people who come downtown each day is critical to the vibrancy of downtown is a real stretch.

  • OOPS! They Did It Again.

    Of course TEAM was correct in working against freeways and most of North America recognizes that.achievement.

    However, Richard, you can’t seriously lump the viaducts in with freeways, can you??? In the solid grid pattern layout of this city, exemplified by the crowding on Hastings Main,and, yes, Burrard, you need short express feeders to unglog those arterlials.

    I know that there are many on this blog who decry any part of car culture, but really, not everyone can pedal or walk. I am all for ride sharing, and for making car users pay, but this notion that every car should be backed up on feeder streets is stupid. I stand to be corrected if any of you can explain how those who need to access DT will be better served by taking out the viaducts.

  • Tiktaalik

    Hastings, Quebec

  • Tiktaalik

    Skytrain

  • Tiktaalik

    cars not being “better served” is the entire point of the exercise.

  • dave

    Ahh Folks… if this is piece of infrastructure is so vile and unneeded, why did we just spend over $300,000.00 on a new “much needed” bike lane and rip up Dunsmuir to accomodate it.

    Or.. is the real answer, the hell with real long term thinking and planning, lets appease our friends now!!!!!!

    After all is said and done…. The one thing this council, park and school board seem to excel at is whizzing $$$$ down the drain for their friends.

    Some pigs are just so more equal than others…

  • Keith

    Transportation costs account for 19% of household expenses in Vancouver.
    That 19% saved by not having a vehicle will be lost to the higer cost of owning or renting downtown.
    Buying a home in Surrey will easily save enough for a new Mercedes.

  • Chris Keam

    “the hell with real long term thinking and planning”

    If your long term plan was to remove the major feeder that put cars on a particular street, thereby reducing traffic volume, wouldn’t that same street be an ideal place for a bike lane?

  • OOPS! They Did It Again

    Tik,

    Read my comment, carefully. People who need to use cars to get to downtown.

    Are you the one who is making that choice for them???

    Chris, I applaud your committment to cycling. It is not a realistic alternative for everyone. As long as people live outside the downtown core–and need to get there—they will need transpo alternatives. Cycling is just one.

  • Richard

    It is really hard to understand why people think removing the viaducts will be that big a deal. Outside peak periods, which last only for one or two hours every day, there is plenty of capacity on other roads so in reality, the removal would only impact maybe 3,000-4,000 vehicles a day, which carry only a small fraction of the number of people entering downtown per day.

    The number of vehicles entering downtown has been declining while the number of people entering downtown has been increasing.

    From http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/plan/pdf/ppt681.pdf

    Between 1995 and 2005, the number of vehicles going to and from the central business district decreased by around 7%, nearly 30,000 vehicles per day. This decrease is near the same as the total using the viaducts. With the opening of the Canada Line, the 30% increase in the number of cars for the Expo Line, thousands of more people living in or near downtown and the recent bicycle improvements, the number of cars entering downtown has likely decreased even more.

  • Richard

    @Keith

    Not a very good financial strategy. If you purchase a more expensive house in Vancouver with the money you save by not owning and operating an automobile, you will end up with a house that is worth much more that you can sell for much more. If you by a cheaper house in Surrey and waste money owning and operating a car, you will have less personal wealth in the end.

    Housing is a good investment, automobiles are more of a money pit.

    As well, the 19% is an average that includes people that don’t waste money on a car. If you own a car and drive it a lot, you will be spending more than the 19% average, especially if you buy an expensive Mercedes.

  • MB

    @ OOPS. Read Fabula’s original comments. Carefully.

    Removing the viaducts is only one option proposed. There are others. And the viaducts are not the only way to get into downtown by car from the east.

    @ Richard. Thanks for the link to the very informative transportation report. Perhaps OOPS and a couple of other heritage viaduct preservation lovers should read it too. Carefully.

    If an average family owns a cheaper house in (name a far flung Vancouver suburb) they will likely own at least two cars, often one per family member over 18. Housing is only one calculation in determing the true cost of of suburban ‘affordability’, and isolating higher transportation costs from the calculation is diningenuous.

  • Chris Keam

    “As long as people live outside the downtown core–and need to get there—they will need transpo alternatives. Cycling is just one.”

    Absolutely. As someone who regularly uses transit, occasionally drives, and often walks (in addition to cycling), I recognize the need for all modes to be considered. Unfortunately, too often a commitment to improving one mode is misconstrued as a mon0-mania that cannot accept others’ requirements. My personal experience is that advocates of safer cycling facilities are almost never the my-way-or-no-way ‘fascists’ some folks would like the general public to believe.

  • Dr. Frankentower

    @ Sean

    With reference to your excellent letter/blog post and concerns about a “Great Wall” of condo towers going up in place of the viaducts, I suggest you review the blanket building height increases (12 storeys around the viaducts) and 2 larger towers approved in Chinatown recently through the DoP’s Historic Area Height Review.

    The 15 storey condo tower approved at the corner of Pender and Carrall in the heart of the Chinatown Heritage District will be built 15 feet from the Sun Yat-Sen Gardens’ north wall and about the same distance from the Carrall Street Greenway. If this tower is going through here, in the cradle of our city’s historic area, what realistic chance is there of no wall of condo towers further south where the viaducts are and the height allowances have all been increased significantly?

    With the HAHR already in his back pocket, I think you will find that when the DoP speaks about “holistic” planning for this area, all he really means is that any plan MUST include towers.

  • Ron

    One other problem is that if you take down the viaducts, much of the traffic will funnel to Hastings Street – which already has a high incidence of pedestrian accidents because of the state of the people down there.

  • Phil

    “the reality is that was never a very well-designed commuter route. At the eastern end, it dumps traffic onto Venables, which runs alongside Strathcona single-family houses, and that it eventually dead-ends at Victoria.”

    The reason the viaducts end the way they do for those who aren’t familiar with the history is that this was the beginning of a freeway out of the city that was stopped by protests.

    What is more aggravating about the proposals is that everyone talking about tearing down the viaducts, reconnecting Chinatown and False Creek, and prompting development and green spaces (aren’t the parks and green spaces there on the north side?) is that everyone seems to be ignoring one small obstacle that is not going away: Skytrain runs directly beneath the viaduct so even if they go the physical boundary will remain.

  • Chris Keam

    “Skytrain runs directly beneath the viaduct so even if they go the physical boundary will remain.”

    My understanding is that one of the options that will be considered will be to elevate that portion of Skytrain, so that it’s not GroundTrain.

  • jesse

    “My understanding is that one of the options that will be considered will be to elevate that portion of Skytrain, so that it’s not GroundTrain.”

    How will that make a difference? Put it underground if you truly want it out of the way, otherwise it will be like Metrotown or Commercial stations, still taking up valuable development/park space. The concept that SkyTrain will be elevated therefore out of the way only works for traffic but not for the surrounding buildings and the area underneath it.

  • Deep Dap Do

    So let me see, you put an additional 60,000 people into downtown in the last twenty years, and the presumption is that they are all working downtown? Judging by my morning commute over the Georgia viaduct heading east at 6:30 AM, there are a lot of people living downtown who have to go to Burnaby, Richmond, Surrey, and especially the North Shore. I can hardly wait for the next 6, 8, or 12 month transit strike.