Kim Bosco Mo has an idea for the Viaducts, inspired by a similar situation in Sydney, that he put forth in the Huffington Post:
It is hard not to compare similar plans in Sydney, Australia where I lived for 15 years before moving here.
There were similar calls in Sydney to take down the Cahill Expressway, an eyesore that sits directly above Circular Quay just a block away from the Opera House, after the city’s Harbour Tunnel was completed. … The area south of the Vancouver viaducts and the False Creek precinct remind me of Darling Harbour in Sydney which has become a thriving business and commercial area …
I can’t stop thinking about the proposed demolition of the viaducts. Is the plan bold enough and does the plan really maximize the potential for the valuable blocks of land, the communities in the area, or even the economy of the Lower Mainland?
Instead of diverting traffic to an upgraded Pacific Boulevard, what if the city really gets serious and builds a tunnel that takes traffic under False Creek and joins Terminal Avenue at the other end? Wouldn’t that benefit commuters and the communities along Prior St by providing an alternative route to the city from Highway 1? Wouldn’t that also eliminate the need to build the Malkin Connector?
I can’t help but think of Bartholomew’s Kingsway Viaduct when I see this (or Terminal Tunnel, as it were)
What lessons can be learned from the Liona Gate Bridge the other iconic Vancouver transportation infrastrucre element. Road pricing can be a valuable tool.
I doubt that the soft soils would be conducive to boring a tunnel. Also the grade required to go from subterranean to the top of the scarpment would be crazy steep or require a tunnel portal (i.e. blight on Georgia St.) quite far to teh west.
Also, from a traffic planning perspective, the current Georgia Viaduct and the proposed Malkin Connector both disgorge traffic to Clarke Drive between main routes (between Commissioner/Hastings and First Ave.), not along a main route (i.e. Terminal / First Ave). That helps distribute eastbound traffic along multiple routes.
If you funnel all traffic down Terminal, the unfortunate residents of First Ave. will suffer a significant increase in traffic volumes.
One of the great things of the viaduct plan is it doesn’t cost millions upon millions of dollars and can go ahead reasonably cheaply and improve the city right away. This would be a great way to kill any benefit and waste millions on cars that are disappearing from downtown anyway. Why would we want to do this when traffic volumes are already falling?
What a waste. Sorry Australia, but we really don’t need or want this idea.
Oh but the current Viaduct plan does cost us Millions upon Millions. The cost of tearing down the Viaducts is ~$100M, building the super road ~$50M and raising the skytrain tracks at the dip another ~$50M. So we’re looking at $200M before any park is built. Mark my words most of the land will be sold to private hands in order to recoup part of that cost. We will be left still owing money and w/o the park that’s being sold to us by council.
Is that true? Demolition of the viaducts has been estimated to cost $100M? That seems… off. Now I wouldn’t want to say that anyone has ever lied on the internet before, but can you provide a source for that conveniently round and alarming number?
$100M is quoted in this Vancouver Sun article (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Vancouver+unveils+plan+replace+viaducts+with+super+road+more+housing/6983485/story.html) although it’s unclear if that includes rebuilding the road or not. The Malkin connector is another $40M.
By comparison, the cost of burying the Alaska viaduct in Seattle is $4.25 billion.
Thanks to Canadian Veggie:
“By comparison, the cost of burying the Alaska viaduct in Seattle is $4.25 billion.”
My point: burying a road would radically increase the costs beyond what is feasible or desirable.
From the original article: “Admittedly, building a tunnel will be more costly than upgrading Pacific Boulevard to take on more traffic but the benefits are also much greater. It will be the freeway connection to the city that city planners envisioned in the ’60s. ”
Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of tearing down the viaducts? I thought we were trying to maintain sufficient capacity without a freeway connection.
I can’t help but think about the flooding that will result from the higher oceans with a new tunnel Luckily, we don’t get hurricanes on the West Coast. 🙂 Clearly, Ausies still haven’t gotten away from the car centric state of mind (but I shouldn’t be over generalizing). Come to think about it, Why don’t we just expand skytrain underground, (instead of the road underground) Of course, if money was spent on Surrey Skytrain, then the future transit riders wouldn’t need to drive on terminal on the first place.
I bet that this tunnel, only 975m long that Kim Proposes, would cost more than the 5.6 km LRT from King George Station to Newton.