Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

wtf? are you kidding me? 1 lane each way?

dumbasses.

Hey, it's the same rationale as for tearing down the viaducts. People don't use roads as much if they can't use them.

[officedweller]

I suppose more people will use Terminal Ave. for those heading east and Commissioner St/McGill for those heading north.

[Vin]

Of course, we have a "super road" at Pacific Boulevard that would connect to a 2-lane mini road. This totally makes sense for the logic of this city. I suppose the local residents would be taking in all the noxious fumes from idling cars, buses and trucks all jammed up along Prior in the future. Let's see how emergency vehicles maneuver out of this in the future.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The problem being that Terminal is backed up too, once it becomes First.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Hey, it's the same rationale as for tearing down the viaducts. People don't use roads as much if they can't use them.

Switch =/= downgrade. Going from five lanes above-grade to six at-grade shouldn't be a problem if done right, but four to two means that now every 22 bus is stuck behind one dope turning left.

[officedweller]

Prior will probably be 4 lanes to St. Paul's, then drop to 2 lanes east of that.
Of course that doesn't help ambulances coming from the east...

[scottN]

I don't see a big problem with 2 lanes. The road capacity constraints will probably be the intersections at either end where the traffic light is red half the time or more. As long as there is a 4 lane section for a block or two west of Clark and east of Main the middle part ought to be able to keep up.

[MIPS]

It makes no consideration for future increases in capacity. This screws everyone else over for decades with a sadistic use of the word "calm".

[s211]

Originally Posted by MIPS

It makes no consideration for future increases in capacity. This screws everyone else over for decades with a sadistic use of the word "calm".

And near where a new hospital will be going. Truly an example of ideology over reality.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by MIPS

It makes no consideration for future increases in capacity. This screws everyone else over for decades with a sadistic use of the word "calm".

However, there will also probably be increases in transit capacity on Hastings in the future as well.

We should also remember traffic expands to fill the space given to it. We don't want more people driving cars.

[officedweller]

There really should be a passing lane so cars can pull over to let ambulances go by.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

There really should be a passing lane so cars can pull over to let ambulances go by.

Then might as well make it a 4-lane road: two dedicated for buses.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

However, there will also probably be increases in transit capacity on Hastings in the future as well.

We should also remember traffic expands to fill the space given to it. We don't want more people driving cars.

We weren't asking for more room. We were asking for the traffic to be moved out of a narrow residential corridor into a parallel one of similar capacity but higher quality.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by scottN

I don't see a big problem with 2 lanes. The road capacity constraints will probably be the intersections at either end where the traffic light is red half the time or more. As long as there is a 4 lane section for a block or two west of Clark and east of Main the middle part ought to be able to keep up.

Could work, so long as that also comes with shoulder lanes, bus turnouts and the closure of every intersection except Gore, Jackson and Raymur.

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

However, there will also probably be increases in transit capacity on Hastings in the future as well.

We should also remember traffic expands to fill the space given to it. We don't want more people driving cars.

But we do want buses, bikes and emergency vehicles... none of which function well where 100% of the lanes have to be dedicated to gridlock. Doing this before the Hastings Line seems like putting the cart before the horse.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Vin

Of course, we have a "super road" at Pacific Boulevard that would connect to a 2-lane mini road. This totally makes sense for the logic of this city. I suppose the local residents would be taking in all the noxious fumes from idling cars, buses and trucks all jammed up along Prior in the future. Let's see how emergency vehicles maneuver out of this in the future.

Originally Posted by s211

And near where a new hospital will be going. Truly an example of ideology over reality.

Yeah, COV doesn't care about the new Hospital being there at all. It's just another building to them.

In an ideal world, Prior would be slightly widened (to actually make the road safer and be gradually converted to a commercial arterial) servicing a redeveloped ~15 story office/residential Strathcona so we can actually put the people and businesses that a hospital tends to anchor where they actually should be.

But of course not. Chinatown is going to get either invaded by hospital workers or druggies. Or both.


Stratchona wants to avoid traffic- but I really don't see how the current plans of narrowing roads is actually going to be better for them. Is speeding cars actually better than traffic jams and idling?

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The problem being that Terminal is backed up too, once it becomes First.



Switch =/= downgrade. Going from five lanes above-grade to six at-grade shouldn't be a problem if done right, but four to two means that now every 22 bus is stuck behind one dope turning left.

...Yeah, just ignore that Quebec and Main also funnel into the same corridor.

The COV's own traffic models show the new super-road, Georgia, and Prior up to Main operating with dynamic traffic lights, and still operating at near- or at maximum capacity. If traffic demand increases for whatever reason in the future, it's going to become total gridlock.

If that ever happens, there is NO way to go back to the viaducts. We can't even put in more transit (minus a subway) without more lanes to build them on.

The only reason this is even conceivable is that traffic demand into Downtown has been historically decreasing. Which is great, but there's limits.
Their own NEFC plan boasts that only 36% of people in NEFC use personal automobiles. Which is great- but that also limits how much further down you can go. In 30 years, there will be gridlock.

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

However, there will also probably be increases in transit capacity on Hastings in the future as well.

We should also remember traffic expands to fill the space given to it. We don't want more people driving cars.

Yeah, that's kind of infrastructure 101. The fact that's used to justify reductions in capacity is kind of dumb- also, there's a Hospital being built here- which you'd think would increase the road demand over current demand?

And a Hastings Line isn't even on the books yet. I'd say we also need a BRT around Downtown.

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

We weren't asking for more room. We were asking for the traffic to be moved out of a narrow residential corridor into a parallel one of similar capacity but higher quality.

Well, Malkin was a non-starter. So it's Prior. Because every other option sucks.

[trofirhen]

Would a short tunnel under Prior, to the hospital, reserved exclusively for hospital vehicles coming in from east or west, be worthwhile considering as an investment?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

...Yeah, just ignore that Quebec and Main also funnel into the same corridor.

The COV's own traffic models show the new super-road, Georgia, and Prior up to Main operating with dynamic traffic lights, and still operating at near- or at maximum capacity. If traffic demand increases for whatever reason in the future, it's going to become total gridlock.

If that ever happens, there is NO way to go back to the viaducts. We can't even put in more transit (minus a subway) without more lanes to build them on.

The only reason this is even conceivable is that traffic demand into Downtown has been historically decreasing. Which is great, but there's limits.
Their own NEFC plan boasts that only 36% of people in NEFC use personal automobiles. Which is great- but that also limits how much further down you can go. In 30 years, there will be gridlock.

Said model doesn't appear to show anywhere near "Canucks night" maximum saturation.

Granted, the downward MV traffic trend may not stick, but in that case - or a case where 2049 arrives and there's still no Hastings Line - the viaducts will be clogged too. We're seeing mild backups right now even in the slow hours... and we've discussed the difficulties of setting up a proper bus/train grid with the 'ducts in the way. I'm usually all for grade-separation, but in this one case, it does more harm than good.

[Aroundtheworld]

For all of those concerned about future increases in traffic, here is a study of where traffic comes from right now for the viaducts.

If you go to page i, you will see a lot of it comes from East Vancouver, Southeast Vancouver, North Burnaby and the Tricities.

There are several transit improvements that have been built that will reduce vehicular traffic and several more that could easily be implemented:

Recent improvements:

• Evergreen Extension
• Hastings B-Line

Future Improvements

• Hastings Rapidbus Efficiency Improvements
• Maple Ridge Rapidbus
• Millennium Line extension to Port Coquitlam
• Commercial/Victoria Rapidbus

This is before any Hastings Skytrain is even considered. I don't think we need to worry about carmaggedon along this corridor.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Vin

Of course, we have a "super road" at Pacific Boulevard that would connect to a 2-lane mini road. This totally makes sense for the logic of this city. I suppose the local residents would be taking in all the noxious fumes from idling cars, buses and trucks all jammed up along Prior in the future. Let's see how emergency vehicles maneuver out of this in the future.

Yup. But the City doesn't like to ever consider such things. They have a one track (or perhaps one lane) mindset with a singular goal, and they ignore or on special occasions flat out make up stuff in order to suit their agenda.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by MIPS

It makes no consideration for future increases in capacity. This screws everyone else over for decades with a sadistic use of the word "calm".

Welcome to Vancouver style thinking. The whole strategy seems to be that everyone will be travelling by hoverboard soon, so why bother even trying to build or even maintain a proper road network.

[GenWhy?]

As our population and job growth increases, data shows from 1996-2016 that the number of cars entering downtown and the city itself to have remained the same or fallen slightly while other modes of transportation have picked up the slack.