The Fate of the Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaducts: A Structured Decision Making Process Presented to Professor Tim McDaniels for the course Planning Practice Methods (PLAN 525) Ignatius But (45624103) Ernette Hutchings-Mason (81260151) Fausto Inomata (82975153) Alex Jia (81920150) Stefan Larose (54852025) Andrew Martin (82798159) Cail Smith (81934151) 12 November 2015 GEORGIA AND DUNSMUIR VIADUCTS – FINAL REPORT Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2. HistorY, Background and Decision Context ....................................................................................... 2 3. Structured Decision Making Context ................................................................................................ 3 3.1 What is the decision to be made, bY whome, and when? ........................................................ 3 3.2 Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 3 3.2.1 The Means-Ends Diagram ........................................................................................................ 3 3.2.2 Objectives, Sub-Objectives and Performance Measures ........................................................ 4 3.3 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ 6 3.4 Expected Consequences .............................................................................................................. 9 3.5 Uncertanties .............................................................................................................................. 11 3.6 Key Tradeoffs ............................................................................................................................ 12 3.7 Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 13 4. Recommended Next Steps .............................................................................................................. 14 5. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 14 6. References ...................................................................................................................................... 16 1 GEORGIA AND DUNSMUIR VIADUCTS – FINAL REPORT 1. Introduction The process of Structured Decision Making (SDM) is a proven method for reaching a resolution, particularlY in complex decisions that involve manY stakeholders and interest groups. The idea of Structured Decision Making is eloquentlY outlined in the book Structured Decision Making by GregorY et al. (2012). This approach is effective because it sYstematizes the consultative process into an objective procedure that produces high-qualitY results and allows decision makers to more heartilY defend their conclusions. For the above reasons, the project team used an SDM approach to create and evaluate a partiallY hYpothetical decision process regarding the removal of the Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaducts in Vancouver, British Columbia. 2. History, Background, and Decision Context The first Georgia Viaduct was originallY built in 1915 so vehicle traffic could bYpass industrial and tidal water areas when entering and exiting downtown Vancouver (CitY of Vancouver, 13 October 2015). In 1972, the Georgia Viaduct was twinned with the Dunsmuir Viaduct, which were both intended to become part of a city-wide freewaY project. However, the freewaY was never completed. As land use in the area has changed, the viaducts have become a psychological and physical barrier between neighbourhoods, particularlY affecting Strathcona to the north-east of the viaducts. These viaducts are not only a barrier to nearby community connections, but are also a painful reminder of the mistreatment experienced by various populations during the construction of the viaducts including African Canadians, Chinese Canadians, Strathcona residents, and others. TodaY, the CitY of Vancouver is considering demolishing the viaducts to open valuable land for development, to improve transportation networks in the area, and to avoid exorbitant maintenance and upgrading costs1. The viaducts currently operate at only 40% capacitY, serve minimal purpose since the municipal freewaY project was not completed, and are in need of costlY seismic upgrades in order to meet earthquake safetY standards (CitY of Vancouver, 13 October 2015). There is a window of opportunitY for the CitY of Vancouver to upgrade the viaducts in preparation for a possible seismic event in the future and as such, the CitY of Vancouver is considering whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks to this decision. This report will outline 1 As the situation with the CitY’s viaducts proposal is changing dailY, this report will not be able to address all materials and decisions currentlY being considered. 2 GEORGIA AND DUNSMUIR VIADUCTS – FINAL REPORT the steps of the Structured Decision Making process and how theY can support the decision to be made. 3. Structured Decision Making Context 3.1 What is the decision to be made, by whom, and when? The first step of the SDM approach is to clearlY define the decision to be made, bY whom, and when. The decision to be made is: What is the best alternative for the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts, as well as the surrounding area? Vancouver City Council is the final decision maker for this project, but input is being provided by residents, business owners, developers, professionals, and the City Planning Department. CitY Council has recentlY decided to go ahead with the option of tearing down both viaducts, however, for the purposes of this project the analYsis team will ignore this fact and proceed as if the decision has not Yet been made. 3.2 Objectives Objectives make up the primarY evaluation criteria when comparing and evaluating alternatives. In this studY, primarY objectives were identified through a process of brainstorming and creating an influence diagram, then the ends and means were separated (see Figure 1), which produced five ‘ends’. 3.2.1 The Means-Ends Diagram The means-ends diagram presented in Figure 1 separates the objectives that the team brainstormed into means and ends. The ends are the end goals for this project while the means are the ways to achieve these goals. Possible evaluation methods are also included in the diagram. This diagram was produced earlY on in the decision-sketching process, and is a snapshot that shows the evolution of the team’s progress. It was used as a tool to produce the final list of objectives, sub- objectives and performance measures; therefore, it does not include all of the final objectives, sub- objectives and performance measures in the diagram itself. 3 GEORGIA AND DUNSMUIR VIADUCTS – FINAL REPORT Figure 1. Means-ends diagram for the Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaducts decision making process. 3.2.2. Objectives, Sub-Objectives, and Performance Measures After later consulting with and receiving input from our SDM advisor Tim McDaniels, the team arrived at a final list of eight objectives. Each of the objectives is made up of a series of sub- objectives, totaling 18 sub-objectives. Each sub-objective has a preferred direction identified (where appropriate), and is described bY at least one performance measure, totaling 28 performance measures (of which 25 are quantifiable). Objectives are listed below (bolded), with sub-objectives nested below these, and performance measures in italics: 1. KeeP costs down (use taxpaYer moneY efficientlY) • Decrease annual maintenance costs • Decrease potential repair costs in case of major earthquake • Keep down capital costs for replacement infrastructure (now or in the future) • Increase funding from higher levels of government 4 GEORGIA AND DUNSMUIR VIADUCTS – FINAL REPORT 2. Increase environmental Quality (requires an Environmental Impact Assessment) • Avoid adverse effects of environmental contaminants in soil: m3 of contaminated soil safely addressed (by incineration, burying, removal from site, secured in place, etc.) • Improve air qualitY bY decreasing greenhouse gas emissions: measured concentration of airborne pollutants near roadways 3. Reconnect communities • SociallY: number of new communitY amenities in site area o Hectares of park space (for different demographics’ use: Youth, skateboarders, tourists, elderlY, etc.) o Number of new free indoor spaces (e.g. communitY centres) o Number of new cafes and restaurants • PhysicallY: o Decrease hectares of emptY/dead space: hectares of empty lots and brownfields o Improve pedestrian networks: § Minutes walking north-to-south across site § Minutes walking east-to-west across site § Desirability rating of an improved sea wall (for walkers; constructed scale) 4. ImProve city rePutation and image • Number of new high-profile urban design feature elements (that are likelY to get coverage in media outside of Vancouver) 5. Increase housing • Increase number of units of social (subsidized) housing • Increase number of units of affordable housing (as defined bY the CitY of Vancouver) • Increase number of units of market rental housing 6. Avoid adverse effects on mobility • Improve transportation networks for users of bikes, cars and emergencY response vehicles o Minutes cycling north-to-south across