Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Democracy trumps money, and we Voted Vision back in.

"Money" says tear them down. This is Vancouver, money is in real estate development and there is a lot to be made with the viaducts removed and develop-able land being opened up.

[trofirhen]

I just hope the new, traditional, "T" intersection at Georgia and Pacific will have a couple of through ramps / off and on ramps, anyway, maybe in an adapted 'diamond' format.
With traffic lights only, that intersection is going to have cars backed out in all directions, and Georgia will no doubt become gridlocked and immobile at rush hour.
I have no particular love for the viaducts, but they were an efficient way in and out of downtown.
If a resultant engineering fudge-up DID happen, and the traffic was by far worsened there, no amount of crocodile tears would cause me any empathy.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by WBC

ahahahahahahahahahahaha...

Nothing personal but I get a kick out of 20-year olds views of the world...Democracy trumps money...That's a good one...

BTW, The only reason why those viaduacts were never completed and highway was not built was for a lack of money. It is not because people protested against highways like Vancouver urban legend says. And today the only reason they will be torn down is because of money, or the money to be made by developers.

In reality though that park that is supposed to be there will be much smaller than on the nice drawing that the city provided and the towers will be much taller than shown as the city will find out that replacement of viduacts will cost much more then they predicted. But then again - who cares.

And no there will be no carmageddon. The viaducts will be replaced by the surface road with a bunch of traffic lights that will slow things down so it will add a few minutes to people going east. The traffic is already a nightmare as other posters said - what's a few traffic lights going to do to it?

There are plenty of examples in this city where democracy trumped money and honestly few of them were for the better of the city.

View cones had nothing to do with money as today they highly prevent developers from taking full advantage of projects that could go taller or be denser maximizing the amount of money per project in our city.

The View Cone policies were implemented because people demanded they be implemented. It has nothing else to do with it.

Also my democracy trumps money statement rings true regardless of how you interpret it. Vancouverites could have voted a different party into power that opposed tearing down the viaducts but we did not.

Thusly we have indirectly voted yes on tearing down the viaducts.

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

There are plenty of examples in this city where democracy trumped money and honestly few of them were for the better of the city.

View cones had nothing to do with money as today they highly prevent developers from taking full advantage of projects that could go taller or be denser maximizing the amount of money per project in our city.

The View Cone policies were implemented because people demanded they be implemented. It has nothing else to do with it.

Also my democracy trumps money statement rings true regardless of how you interpret it. Vancouverites could have voted a different party into power that opposed tearing down the viaducts but we did not.

Thusly we have indirectly voted yes on tearing down the viaducts.

Appropriate response to an unnecessarily condescending post. I doubt I would have been as civil

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by logan5

Some facts just in case some people are not aware.... The viaducts are designed to handle up to 1800 vehicles per lane per hour. At their busiest they handle 750 vehicles per lane per hour. The surface streets cannot come even close to utilizing their capacity.

What is the logic behind wanting to keep them? They are pointless.

There is a difference between "original design" and their current setup. The bikelanes on Dunmuir discourage their use and lead to backed up traffic, which makes it physically impossible to get all 1800 across in an hour.

There has also been a lost lane on the Gerogia side for some time because of construction, leading into a bottle neck that keeps traffic from flowing onto it at rush hour.

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

I walk by the viaducts (actually on) almost every day since I work downtown and I've almost never seen it hugely busy.

I cannot see how tearing the viaducts down and putting a new ground level street will honestly lead to traffic hell.

Vancouver is already traffic hell since we decided not to build a freeway. Whether this viaduct stays or goes, that won't change.

I live in this area and I have just as much of a right to campaign on what I want to see. The area has become a mess due to inaction on the part of development. I've seen the proposals of what it will look like without the viaducts and honestly, as a resident of this area I MUCH prefer it.

My voice and concerns were met when I cast my ballot in November of last year.

I went to a food truck thing a while ago, and the city had a booth setup so city planners can talk about removing the viaducts.

One of the planners said that removing the viaducts will only add 1 minute and 35 seconds onto the trip between Beatty and Main.

I said, it takes like 30 seconds to do that now, so after it will take 2 minutes? So that is in essence a 4 fold increase. How is 400% more time spent not bad? And that was only average, not worst case. He had no response.

And I asked him is that 1:30 more than now, or over original time? Because on the Dunsmuir you used to get into downtown FAST. So is the increase over the design time, or the current modified slowed down time? he had no idea.

Then I asked about the land for the park. I asked that in all the renders, the park is a giant lawn. Like David Lam, Cooper Park, Creekside Park... I asked what happens to the event space, like for Cirque du Soleil? or other events that can't happen on hilly lawn? Like staging for Concerts at the arenas or all the space they used for hosting foreign press for the World Cup.

He said he thinks the area would be better if it were open for everyone, that using it for events shuts out the local community.

But I asked what about Vancouver's standing as the center for not only our regional economy, but also our regional culture? Doesn't having space to host cultural events (even if they are not open for free to everyone) have importance in the city? Are we sacrificing the ability to host in the future cultural activities and events just so local rich people could sit on a lawn? Doesn't losing out on the ability to host something like the Big Top actually harm Vancouver overall? Are we sacrificing diversity so we can have another David Lam, Coopers park, or Creekside?

Then he changed gears and said the design wasn't final.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I went to a food truck thing a while ago, and the city had a booth setup so city planners can talk about removing the viaducts.

One of the planners said that removing the viaducts will only add 1 minute and 35 seconds onto the trip between Beatty and Main.

I said, it takes like 30 seconds to do that now, so after it will take 2 minutes? So that is in essence a 4 fold increase. How is 400% more time spent not bad? And that was only average, not worst case. He had no response.

And I asked him is that 1:30 more than now, or over original time? Because on the Dunsmuir you used to get into downtown FAST. So is the increase over the design time, or the current modified slowed down time? he had no idea.

So it's only adds a minute and a half? That doesn't sound too bad at all. Nobody drives, starting at Beatty and ending at Main, so your 400% (actually it's 300%) is the maximum average increase. If I'm driving from my workplace on Beatty to my home in New Westminster, right now Google Maps says it'd take 26 minutes. With this 1:30 addition that's up to 27:30, and increase of 5.7%. That's no big deal, I could easily take an extra couple of minutes by hitting more red lights than normal.

Then I asked about the land for the park. I asked that in all the renders, the park is a giant lawn. Like David Lam, Cooper Park, Creekside Park... I asked what happens to the event space, like for Cirque du Soleil? or other events that can't happen on hilly lawn? Like staging for Concerts at the arenas or all the space they used for hosting foreign press for the World Cup.

He said he thinks the area would be better if it were open for everyone, that using it for events shuts out the local community.

But I asked what about Vancouver's standing as the center for not only our regional economy, but also our regional culture? Doesn't having space to host cultural events (even if they are not open for free to everyone) have importance in the city? Are we sacrificing the ability to host in the future cultural activities and events just so local rich people could sit on a lawn? Doesn't losing out on the ability to host something like the Big Top actually harm Vancouver overall? Are we sacrificing diversity so we can have another David Lam, Coopers park, or Creekside?

I'd rather have a park that's open to everybody, like David Lam Park, than a parking lot that's open to nobody. I don't care about Cirque coming in for a month out of a year, I care about kids playing with frisbees 12 months out of the year.

The three parks you mention are always full of people. The parking lot where Cirque goes is empty. I know I'd rather much have a vibrant park than a stagnant parking lot.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by WBC

BTW, The only reason why those viaduacts were never completed and highway was not built was for a lack of money. It is not because people protested against highways like Vancouver urban legend says. And today the only reason they will be torn down is because of money, or the money to be made by developers.

Do you have a source for this information?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

There is a difference between "original design" and their current setup. The bikelanes on Dunmuir discourage their use and lead to backed up traffic, which makes it physically impossible to get all 1800 across in an hour.

No, the lights and intersections cause backed up traffic. The bike lane has little to no effect.

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I went to a food truck thing a while ago, and the city had a booth setup so city planners can talk about removing the viaducts.

One of the planners said that removing the viaducts will only add 1 minute and 35 seconds onto the trip between Beatty and Main.

I said, it takes like 30 seconds to do that now, so after it will take 2 minutes? So that is in essence a 4 fold increase. How is 400% more time spent not bad? And that was only average, not worst case. He had no response.

And I asked him is that 1:30 more than now, or over original time? Because on the Dunsmuir you used to get into downtown FAST. So is the increase over the design time, or the current modified slowed down time? he had no idea.

Then I asked about the land for the park. I asked that in all the renders, the park is a giant lawn. Like David Lam, Cooper Park, Creekside Park... I asked what happens to the event space, like for Cirque du Soleil? or other events that can't happen on hilly lawn? Like staging for Concerts at the arenas or all the space they used for hosting foreign press for the World Cup.

He said he thinks the area would be better if it were open for everyone, that using it for events shuts out the local community.

But I asked what about Vancouver's standing as the center for not only our regional economy, but also our regional culture? Doesn't having space to host cultural events (even if they are not open for free to everyone) have importance in the city? Are we sacrificing the ability to host in the future cultural activities and events just so local rich people could sit on a lawn? Doesn't losing out on the ability to host something like the Big Top actually harm Vancouver overall? Are we sacrificing diversity so we can have another David Lam, Coopers park, or Creekside?

Then he changed gears and said the design wasn't final.

Sounds like you were being a dick and he just wanted you to go away.

[WBC]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Do you have a source for this information?

Yes. And from none other then Mr. Gordon Price. He published this very interesting article a while back. A good read for everybody who wants to know a little bit more about what really drives the world.

https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/revising-the-revision/

[a very long weekend]

tangentially, this image is very close to how the miami central station is set to look:



anyway, related to this project, if the replacement cost really is 40-60 million bones, then this is an easy decision. i just hope that they get it all done right, with a good commercial street wall toward main street rather than that goofy grass lawn walk up shit you have at city gate and yaletown.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

So it's only adds a minute and a half? That doesn't sound too bad at all. Nobody drives, starting at Beatty and ending at Main, so your 400% (actually it's 300%) is the maximum average increase. If I'm driving from my workplace on Beatty to my home in New Westminster, right now Google Maps says it'd take 26 minutes. With this 1:30 addition that's up to 27:30, and increase of 5.7%. That's no big deal, I could easily take an extra couple of minutes by hitting more red lights than normal.

My mistake, 2 minutes is 4 times longer longer than 30 seconds, a 300% increase, or 400% more.

Where does that stop though? What if every municipality wants to make every stretch of street just a bit slower.

And add up the time lost for every commuter for every commute, each way, over a year, and that ads up to a lot of time.

It might not seem like much to an individual, but, utilitarianly speaking, I doubt the park will get as many man hours of enjoyment as people lose in man hours from extra commuting. Especially added enjoyment that they can't get at a current park.

I'm not convinced it is an even trade.

I'd rather have a park that's open to everybody, like David Lam Park, than a parking lot that's open to nobody. I don't care about Cirque coming in for a month out of a year, I care about kids playing with frisbees 12 months out of the year.

The three parks you mention are always full of people. The parking lot where Cirque goes is empty. I know I'd rather much have a vibrant park than a stagnant parking lot.

Full? Really? I must always go by at the wrong time. I'm trying to find a pic of the park busy online, but except for Jazz fest and the occasional football game, I can't find a single picture of a large group of people enjoying the park. This is what I usually see when I'm there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaletown#/media/File:Yaletown2.jpg

Or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaletown#/media/File:Yaletown-park.jpg

But if parks are that busy and that important, how about we tear down the Queen Elizabeth and Orpheum and put in some parks? Just think of all the money that goes into those buildings so that only a few people can be entertained at a time. Did you know, there are times of the day when those buildings are not being used? What a waste; someone could be playing fetch with their dog on that very spot.

Who needs art, culture and events when you can play Frisbee any time you want. And what's up with Bard on the Beach? Get those freeloaders outta that park. People need to lay down on grass no closer than 40 feet to anyone else.

I mean, it's not like their isn't room to have fun at Andy Livingston Park, Creekside Park, Hindge Park, Charleson Park, Ron Basford Park, Sutcliffe Park, George Wainborn Park, David Lam Park, and Coopers Park. When I'm on the Skytrain, I must not see how Creekside is so overcrowded there is no room to do anything that it warrants another David Lam be built next to it.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

No, the lights and intersections cause backed up traffic. The bike lane has little to no effect.

Sounds like you were being a dick and he just wanted you to go away.

The light causes a problem because it has lost 1/3 it's capacity to move traffic through it in a cycle. I used to drive that way a lot for work before the bike lanes, never had a trouble getting off the Viaduct. Now it routinely backs up to Main, even in the PM.

And actually, he started it. I was just looking at the boards, and he introduced himself by saying the new road would only add an average 1:35 onto a trip like it was an amazing boast. I didn't go looking for the fight, he started it by trying to sell it.

And I felt like he was being genuine about plans not being final. Clearly a lot of people want a grassy park there, but he's right, they were looking for input too. I just didn't give them the pat on the back and echo chamber response they want.

He really did try to pitch me on how the park should benefit locals first and foremost, not people coming into town for events, until I said I wasn't downtown local, and I said I think Vancouver should be more than resort for residents, that it is regionally significant and downtown should put BC first, not new comer residents. That's when he changed his tune, about it not being final plans.

They were clearly there to try and get local residents on board (and I mean East False creek/Yaletown local, screw you if you were from East Van). They were totally pitching that angle, that it benefits them, who cares about everyone else.

One of the things we did talk about was why Concorde hasn't built on their land yet. Would the area really seem as bad as it seems today if they just went ahead and built on the land they already own. He said they are waiting to see what happens. That there would be a land swap and it would affect what they build.

But it does show they really want to move ahead with tearing down the viaducts, and are pitching hopes and promises about what it will be like, without an actual end goal.

They just want to transfer the land around to the disproportionate benefit Concorde at the expense of taxpayers who don't live in the immediate neighborhood and won't see any of the benefits.

And he didn't actually try to get rid of me, I had someplace to be and had to leave. So I'll give him credit on that, his lack of specifics and changing tunes wasn't just to get rid of me.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

tangentially, this image is very close to how the miami central station is set to look:

........................................... [pic] [pic] .........

anyway, related to this project, if the replacement cost really is 40-60 million bones, then this is an easy decision. i just hope that they get it all done right, with a good commercial street wall toward main street rather than that goofy grass lawn walk up shit you have at city gate and yaletown.

The Miami central looks smart and nice. Is it all for transit? I could not see any roads there.
I sure hope they get ours done right. The first real major mistake would be to take out the viaducts without beforehand having provided some sort of Georgia-Pacific Bvd connection.
Another tempting bad measure would be to install an "interim" intersection, then leave it at that to cut $$ and not do a Diamond or something. That is an intersection that must flow well.

[nefc]

They're coming down: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/brit...vancouvers-two-viaducts/article25620997/

[Pinion]

I was stuck in the former Embarcadero freeway traffic in SF this past weekend. Definitely looks pretty now, but what a shitshow. I walked most of it the previous day and I think I might've been faster.

Hopefully a tear down benefits NE False Creek as much, but I doubt it since it's not as long/as imposing a stretch.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by nefc

They're coming down: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/brit...vancouvers-two-viaducts/article25620997/

It sounds like they are coming up with a fairly reasonable compromise.

[WBC]

Originally Posted by csbvan

It sounds like they are coming up with a fairly reasonable compromise.

So am I understating correctly that

1) They will do this in stages, first terminating viaducts at Main st?

2) They will look for alternative to Prior street which would mean only one thing - Malkin connector?

[WarrenC12]

I'm sure all will be revealed in the next few months. I just hope we don't have to wait until the council meeting to see all of the plans, specifically the phasing and the "after" roadmaps.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by csbvan

It sounds like they are coming up with a fairly reasonable compromise.

What is the compromise?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

...
Sounds like you were being a dick and he just wanted you to go away.

Poor baby, I'm sure there's nothing worse for some overpaid civic bureaucrat than actually having to listen and answer well-informed questions from someone who pays his salary.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm sure all will be revealed in the next few months. I just hope we don't have to wait until the council meeting to see all of the plans, specifically the phasing and the "after" roadmaps.

The article implies that there's some question about how to connect the Union Street bike route up the escarpment to Dunsmuir. I vote for a bicycle lift.