Many thanks to Ralph Segal for this wonderful background on Vancouver’s Northeast False Creek (NEFC) plan, and the thinking that has led to the planned viaducts’ demolition.
This is for those who still question the wisdom of demolishing the Viaducts, as contained in Vancouver’s just released NorthEast False Creek (NEFC) Plan.
Between 2007 and 2010 (prior to my retirement from Planning in late 2011), the City’s NEFC team was developing a detailed Area Plan for implementation which assumed the viaducts were a given. Why would we think otherwise? Viaduct removal was nowhere on our radar. But as the team struggled to address the full range of planning and urban design objectives, development economics, provision of affordable/social housing, parks, etc., etc, we kept running into the obstacles that the viaducts presented….serious compromises to most objectives, sacrificed potential qualitatively, quantitatively and economically, not the least of which was foregoing the freeing up of two City-owned blocks either side of Main St. (800 Main from Quebec to Gore Streets). The list of missed opportunities, diminished “value” (value in the broadest sense, not merely dollars), just kept on growing. This was entirely aside from any concerns about viaduct aesthetics, the under-viaduct environment or negative references to a long-abandoned 1950’s discredited elevated freeway philosophy.
We had to ask – what compelling benefits are provided by the viaducts? The bottom line boiled down to a convenient vehicular access in and out of the Downtown, certainly a worthy benefit. But at what sacrifice to other compromised objectives as well as foregone opportunities! This is the point at which serious investigation of an at-grade street option began for the entire NEFC Plan area. Was there an at-grade street arrangement that would at least equal, or surpass, the viaducts’ vehicular capacity in terms of the City’s overall transportation policy for future Downtown and False Creek Flats development? The ensuing comprehensive investigation has delivered a re-designed “complete streets” network proposal that addresses this issue. Full details of this network are being advanced.
The City’s NEFC Plan illustrates a broad-based approach that can provide a truly transformative environment for this entire east end of the Creek, with vastly improved connectivity to, and enhancement of, surrounding established and future neighbourhoods, the full benefits of which will be passed on to future generations of Vancouverites. The comprehensive process with wide-ranging public consultation through which this Plan has evolved has yielded an outstanding detailed vision.
Thanks for the background information. Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that Vancouverites have lost most of their trust in city planners. From what I recall of the plans, the street that will replace the viaducts will have about 6 intersections with traffic lights, compared to zero intersections and zero traffic lights for the same stretch via the viaducts. That’s fine, but I’ve read numerous times that travel time along that stretch will be virtually unchanged (perhaps 30 seconds added).
Now how on earth are we to believe that replacing a stretch of road with no intersections and traffic lights with one that includes six will have no impact on travel times? If the city would just be forthcoming with all the pros and cons of the plan then citizens wouldn’t be so cynical.
Artist renderings commissioned by the city always have bright green coloring for the waterfront park (which no one believes will actually be 11 acres), and condo towers faintly ghosted into the background so that you hardly notice them. At first glance you’d think the viaducts are simply being replaced by a big beautiful park, which most certainly isn’t the case.
So Vancouverites are probably right to have a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to any plans for this area. And the city is to blame for that skepticism. Hope they prove us wrong.
“Now how on earth are we to believe that replacing a stretch of road with no intersections and traffic lights with one that includes six will have no impact on travel times? ”
Not many people driving across the viaducts are just going to the end of the viaducts. They have to go through the intersection at the end of the viaduct. That is what governs the flow and speed of traffic. Very similar to the Cambie Bridge.
When I have travelled the viaduct during congested times I don’t see drivers making it right to that light, they are lined up, and only a portion get through each light cycle. The reality is that vehicle throughput up to and off of the viaducts has been limited by the capacity of surface streets. Racing across a viaduct doesn’t help reduce travel times. And if you want to go somewhere other than to the end of the viaduct, cross streets are an advantage, not a negative.
Traffic modelling shows that the proposed new road network outperform the existing network. It isn’t politicians telling you that, it is engineers and planners. And they are showing their work, not just making claims to get reelected.
I think it’s healthy to have some scepticism. (This is different than negativism though.)
I think in regards to travel times with the viaducts vs the future on grade road, that the movement now is to make city driving different than highway driving. That in a city (or at least this city) you don’t expect to drive fast but the system is such that you can expect to drive slowly but surely and get places in reasonable times.
Another good thing about the surface road is that if things get clogged up you’re not trapped on a viaduct, you can turn off one of the several side roads.
Of course the renderings are going to be pretty. What else would you expect?
Remember that the viaducts are also a bypass
– so you wouldn’t get stuck on the clogged streets below (which do exist at present).
– in future, everyone will all be on those clogged streets below.
Sure, but the City’s also cracking down on that kind of “rat-racing,” so that you can’t take the side roads and have to sit in congestion on the arterial.
Instead of the traffic being funneled on the elevated viaducts and jammed up against the first red light (see Jeff’s comment above) it will be dispersed onto a surface network.
That’s a bad thing?
It is when that surface network’s got cross-traffic – picture three Broadway/Cambie-type intersections all lined up. Again, between the drivers trying to turn off, the jaywalkers, and people who just ignore traffic lights, three minutes extra seems pretty idealistic.
Don’t really care about the drivers, but as the guy riding the bus stuck behind the drivers, this is a bit worrying.
Speaking of which, which line would TransLink reroute along the new Pacific? Or would they just make the C23 a proper trolley?
I would think the C23 route could be refined with the new street network. But I also think that buses should be on the Georgia Ramp and then along Pacific, instead of either turning around at Beatty, or funnelling down Granville to Pender or Hastings to carry on to the east.
Voony likes bus route analysis. Maybe he has a proposal for new routes in the downtown core.
Busses chugging up that grade will make for a pleasant experience for nearby residents. I find it amusing that nobody points out the current viaducts are a much faster and safer route for cyclists than anything that involves a series of intersections.
You make it sound like they are steam powered. I can imagine a little red bus singing “I think I can, I think I can”, lol.
Is driving up the proposed grade on Georgia different than driving up Powell to achieve the same elevation gain?
From a simple volume and capacity analysis it was obvious the capacity was excessive most of the day and given the high volumes of transit riders and cyclists crossing into downtown in the area it is almost self evident that the capacity of the viaducts could be removed/reduced.
But it would have been good to keep the structure and have some sort of a High Line with supporting amenities and residences below and above. We mentioned this in the report of the monitoring of the 2010 Olympics (which was an exaggerated “best case” scenario of the lack of need for this corridor), where it may have been better to keep the structure intact, possibly semi-burying with earth berms Hobbit-style on which people can walk up from ground-level to the viaducts which would be used for active transport modes and maybe a street car linking Commercial drive. And as a “legacy” of the Games, possibly have various shops representing the countries that participated in this city-defining event. It would be a fresh take on the typical glassy-Vancouver structure.
Well, Hogan’s Alley got buried by the viaducts at Main Street. One of Ralph’s strongest points was to illuminate this social loss at the expense of a single-use transportation project. The NEFC plan proposes another community there. What is more important, a community of housing and shops and culture, or a remnant freeway?
If Jimi Hendrix’s grandmother could express an opinion from above on the loss of Hogan’s Alley (her home at the time), you can guess what it would be.
Given the geography of Vancouver, the lack of a freeway under Vancouver from N Shore to S Vancouver and airport and/or a freeway into Vancouver from N/E-Van and Burnaby into Vancouver was the right decision at the time. E-Van is swampy and as such viaducts the right decision 60+ years ago.
The access from N Van and W Van to the rest of MetroVan is weak.
Many cities now have extensive tunnel systems. Did Vancouver ever consider that ? [ tolled of course ]
What irks me is the lack of alternatives ie a fast trains or tunnels throughout Vancouver. Massive immigration and construction and almost nothing in terms of people moving infrastructure ?
As an ode to Hendrix you could build earth berms in the shape of a Flying V and paint frets on the viaducts. Would reflect the heritage and identity of the (recent) past, create 3-d public spaces, provide for active modes, and most importantly, would look cool on Google Earth.
Actually, Hendrix played a Telecaster most often, and a Stratocaster on occasion, always with a wall of Marshall amps behind.
Still, I’d rather see a viable community resurrected on the Hogan’s alley site, perhaps with streetlamp standards modeled on the traditional Fender electric guitar neck with tuning key heads. Perhaps the tuning keys themselves could consist of embedded coloured LED light clusters. And why not broadcast ‘All Along the Watchtower’ from them via hidden speakers? You read it here first.
Just some fun thoughts a lot more meaningful than a poodle on a pole.
No it has to be the Flying V because that’s what the viaducts road network has always looked to me from above. Plus, it is a “flyover viaduct”, hence the perfect guitar is the “Flying V”:
http://www.acuere.ca/misc/The_Flying_V_Viaducts.png
And to continue the theme, this place will be surrounded by “Watchtowers”…Hendrix (or more accurately, Dylan) was prophetic:
“There’s too much confusion,
I can’t get no relief.
Businessmen, they drink my wine,
Plowmen dig my earth.
None of them along the line
Know what any of it is worth.”
Ralph deserves tremendous credit for his tenacity to keep the prospect of removal a possibility until the politics could catch up to his vision. I am fortunate to have kept a few of his sketches in the archives of the city’s Urban Design Studio. I will add a small footnote that, for a fleeting moment, there was also the possibility, albeit slim, of a more direct and fully elevated skytrain alignment from the Main Street Station to Stadium. I fondly recall this idea to remove the current “amusement ride” swooping rider experience, that compromises visual and pedestrian access to/from Chinatown and the creek, actually being suggested by a representative of Concord Pacific. The idea was to attempt the same implementation approach as with sections of the Lion’s Gate Bridge being dropped in overnight for a new guideway, with the last section to splice into the existing departing Main Street alignment, so that there was minimal system down time. I thought this was a brilliant strategy to what will continue to be a challenging condition while appreciating how much better, and relevant, the False Creek waterfront will now become for nearby residents and businesses. A preliminary cost/benefits analysis was never attempted to see if the new alignment idea deserved deeper consideration.
I asked about this to a city staff person at an open house a few years ago (aligning the Skytrain height up where it now dips) and was told that Translink told them they’d rather put their money on other things.
To me and you it might look like a simple thing but to an engineer there could be some very complicated things to make it happen.
Still something to look into and only rule out if need be.
Agreed that there are many others projects that could use the millions of dollars it would take to replace the swooping section of SkyTrain guideway.
The elevated viaducts are being replaced with a surface road.
It seems a bit incongruous to demand a full elevation of the SkyTrain line when other elevated structures are being removed.
If you can work around the new surface road, you can work around the swooping guideway.
Yeah, it looks like they are working with it in the design. Some sort of berm next to it serving as the base of the active transportation ramp.
The dip will be a legacy of the past. People will wonder why it does that and there can be a heritage plaque to explain.
The berm also serves as a noise barrier for the park.
I can’t help but think that other cities could benefit greatly from adopting Vancouver’s previous process of advancing urban design years in advance of concept and development approval. The fact that an urban design studio existed for years at city hall to work out the challenges of sites like NEFC, and to flesh out area plans like Grandview Woodlands before it erupted in the city’s face after the urban design goal posts were moved, says much about the city’s maturity.
The city’s urban design group should be widely credited for pulling a number of forces together for the common good in the real world, and Ralph Segal, Scott Hein and others deserve a big thank you. My understanding is that the studio is now unfortunately defunct. By perchance have bits of it been reconstituted elsewhere in the Planning Dept?
Recommendation of the demolition of the viaducts was considered as far back as 2002-03 during the drafting of the then Downtown Transportation Plan. It has only been in the time since that the Transportation Engineering Branch has derived a plan that would at least equal the times and flows currently modeled and achieve the additional benefits described by Ralph Segal as well. It needs to be borne in mind that the modeling reflects overall system performance and not just travel between two places. It’s also far more specific than just the numbers of controlled intersections and other variables. My thanks to Ralph, Scot and others for their thoughts and subsequent work on this project.
Bob posted “I find it amusing that nobody points out the current viaducts are a much faster and safer route for cyclists than anything that involves a series of intersections.”
Couple of clarifiers:
The viaducts don’t have intersections, but that also means that they are single purpose. The Dunsmuir viaduct serves those connecting to Adanac. It isn’t used if you want access to destinations along the way. Those people riding to other than Adanac are currently in vehicle traffic without protection.
For those on bikes connecting straight through to Adanac from Dunsmuir, there is only one additional intersection, at Quebec. The ramp with protected lanes runs right to there. That intersection should be protected the same as at Burrard and Pacific.
If one does want to access shops or restaurants along the former viaduct route, there will be new protected bike lanes at ground level. And people on bikes will have a dedicated space, not immediately next to a line of traffic queuing up for Beatty.
Now think about the people riding bikes and coming from the CVG or Ontario Bikeway, and bound for downtown. They don’t use the viaduct today, but will be able to use the new ramp to Dunsmuir.
Lots of wins for people who choose to ride. And the more that do so, the more room there will be on the road network for those that choose to drive, or need to drive. More wins.