Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

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.

Exactly the same rationale for the viaduct removal.

[cairnstone]

That is the case now as many have bought homes dt so less trips. But as housing cost go up you will see many more coming from the east side of the Metro Area. So they have 1 choice drive to park and ride then rapid bus then skytrain or they will drive.

And the commercial traffic will continue to grow and that is not transit friendly

[GenWhy?]

Metro Vancouver saw an 11% decrease in private auto use from I believe 1996-2016, which was the year Evergreen began operation. So a further decrease in private auto use is foreseeable in the next census. 3 new B-Line routes will be in operation in early 2020.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by 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.

NO that can't be true. Everyone knows that car traffic is a one way ratchet that can only be dealt with more and wider roads, as all the other cities have shown us through glorious road widening

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Metro Vancouver saw an 11% decrease in private auto use from I believe 1996-2016, which was the year Evergreen began operation. So a further decrease in private auto use is foreseeable in the next census. 3 new B-Line routes will be in operation in early 2020.

Any stats on the increase of other non-private vehicles, public vehicles, etc? Also, it is stupid to reduce the road capacity by 50% or more when there is only an 11% decrease in private auto use. The B-lines need special bus lanes to make them more efficient. I guess this won't happen on Prior with only 2 lanes available.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Vin

Any stats on the increase of other non-private vehicles, public vehicles, etc? Also, it is stupid to reduce the road capacity by 50% or more when there is only an 11% decrease in private auto use. The B-lines need special bus lanes to make them more efficient. I guess this won't happen on Prior with only 2 lanes available.

There are no plans to have B-Lines on Prior. Also, there is no planned reduction of capacity on Prior, this proposal would just keep capacity the same as there are already parked cars for much of Prior's length.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

There are no plans to have B-Lines on Prior. Also, there is no planned reduction of capacity on Prior, this proposal would just keep capacity the same as there are already parked cars for much of Prior's length.

Not in the peak direction.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Not in the peak direction.

On one hand, there's usually one or two dipsticks who didn't get the memo (or ignore it) and reduce it to two lanes anyway. On the other, the best solution for that is probably NOT closing the parking lanes.

[retro_orange]

• Video Link

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

There are no plans to have B-Lines on Prior. Also, there is no planned reduction of capacity on Prior, this proposal would just keep capacity the same as there are already parked cars for much of Prior's length.

Shouldn't the city plan for the future? If they slim down Prior street they won't even have a chance to increase the public transit services in the future when population increases around the area and beyond. If you've been to cities with great transit infrastructure around the world, you will see loads of buses or streetcars on major roads throughout the city, with many roads having dedicated bus lanes. We are just very behind in that regard, and have City policies to thank for that. Prior street is a major thoroughfare close to the City centre, and should be primed to accommodate more population or commercial activity growths in the near future, and not turned back into a backwater.

As for B-line buses, what if Hastings street is blocked off to vehicular traffic due to an accident or construction? Is there an efficient alternate route to enter or leave downtown?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

• Video Link

Dumb video. We can refute all the points raised in it. They had all been argued against in this forum thread. That narrator is basically parroting Vision's lame excuses to tear down the viaducts.

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

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.

The above video, exactly.

Points covered included: seismic danger, a mistake of the past, surrounding wasteland, nefarious project (to wipe off hogan Alley) and 50% underutilized roadways.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Metro Vancouver saw an 11% decrease in private auto use from I believe 1996-2016, which was the year Evergreen began operation. So a further decrease in private auto use is foreseeable in the next census. 3 new B-Line routes will be in operation in early 2020.

Not Metro Van. Vancouver. IE. City of Vancouver.

There is reason to believe the trend may reverse. Rideshare is known to generally cause congestion, and while automated vehicles may reduce congestion with better transit capacity, there's also the good likelihood that it'll make transit less attractive and that there will be people-less cars zooming around cities as carshare programs and driving in general becomes more attractive.

Parking may no longer be a limit or deterrent to how many cars can fill up the Downtown core when your car drops you off.

Also, much of the decrease is because Vancouver's population is older and younger (Elderly and College students) and tends to drive less as a result.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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.

Maybe it's because I'm from Langley. :/

Expo/Pacific is where most of the excess capacity is, and also where any new surface-level transit would be built, as indicated by AroundtheWorld's study.
https://fraseropolis.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/2011-viaducts-study-summary.pdf
And yes, we did discuss that. The difficult section was connecting to any Prior St. transit.
Removing the viaducts would force any transit to run without dedicated lanes at a chokepoint, pretty much making the Vancouver Streetcar idea pretty pointless. You may as well ignore the NEFC area entirely.

Originally Posted by 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?

No. The viaducts are perfectly functional and in good shape.

Originally Posted by 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.

Your own study points out that removing the viaducts "Requires significant diversion of existing trips to transit" and that the traffic removed from the Viaducts fills up Expo/Pacific nearly entirely. Note the new road only improves capacity on Expo/Pacific by 1 lane.

I have no idea how anyone is expected to use Keefer or Alexander to get into Downtown, so that leaves Hastings, Pender, and Powell for excess capacity. A decent chunk for traffic surges, but you leave no space for potential demand growth due to planned redevelopments in East Van (where most of these people are coming from.)

The planned transit improvements may help, though; as I pointed out, you need some level of excess capacity or space for adding on-grade transit in the first place. Buses don't work well in gridlock.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Not Metro Van. Vancouver. IE. City of Vancouver.

My data is from the Canadian Census and Metro Vancouver regional authority. We've made some great changes over the years. Metro Van had roughly an 11% decrease.

City of Vancouver from 1996-2016 (Canada Census) is roughly a 15% decrease in personal auto use. I think this can largely be attributed to the fact that most Vancouverites live and work in their hometown - the most of Vans regional municipality - due to easy inner-city commutes rather than inter-city commuting.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Vin

Shouldn't the city plan for the future? If they slim down Prior street they won't even have a chance to increase the public transit services in the future when population increases around the area and beyond. If you've been to cities with great transit infrastructure around the world, you will see loads of buses or streetcars on major roads throughout the city, with many roads having dedicated bus lanes. We are just very behind in that regard, and have City policies to thank for that. Prior street is a major thoroughfare close to the City centre, and should be primed to accommodate more population or commercial activity growths in the near future, and not turned back into a backwater.

As for B-line buses, what if Hastings street is blocked off to vehicular traffic due to an accident or construction? Is there an efficient alternate route to enter or leave downtown?

TBF, they're slimming it for parking. So the space can be reopened.

Though, true BRT/LRT needs 3-2.5 lanes of space (to be on the center lane). Prior Street as is actually probably needs to be widened for that.

Originally Posted by Vin

Dumb video. We can refute all the points raised in it. They had all been argued against in this forum thread. That narrator is basically parroting Vision's lame excuses to tear down the viaducts.



The above video, exactly.

Points covered included: seismic danger, a mistake of the past, surrounding wasteland, nefarious project (to wipe off hogan Alley) and 50% underutilized roadways.

Yeah. Hogan's Alley is dead already anyways, and the eastern half of the viaducts is suggested to be chopped off on the study in my above comment which would do the same thing with only 20% capacity reduction (most traffic is from Main St.)

I wonder what the seismic grading is on the towers built in the area, and those proposed to be built in place of the viaducts.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

My data is from the Canadian Census and Metro Vancouver regional authority. We've made some great changes over the years. Metro Van had roughly an 11% decrease.

City of Vancouver from 1996-2016 (Canada Census) is roughly a 15% decrease in personal auto use. I think this can largely be attributed to the fact that most Vancouverites live and work in their hometown - the most of any regional municipality - due to easy inner-city commutes rather than inter-city commuting.

I can't find it. Is it percentage of trips or absolute trips?

And the COV had most people live in the COV back in the 80s too. TBF, I said a lot, not all.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Maybe it's because I'm from Langley. :/

Expo/Pacific is where most of the excess capacity is, and also where any new surface-level transit would be built, as indicated by AroundtheWorld's study.
https://fraseropolis.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/2011-viaducts-study-summary.pdf
And yes, we did discuss that. The difficult section was connecting to any Prior St. transit.
Removing the viaducts would force any transit to run without dedicated lanes at a chokepoint, pretty much making the Vancouver Streetcar idea pretty pointless. You may as well ignore the NEFC area entirely.

That's what heavy traffic looks like in Langley? Lucky bastards.

Prior's its own thing, and we can discuss the infinite wisdom of City Council caving into the NIMBYs separately from the viaducts (I think we have, a page or two back). Again, there isn't a good way to run streetcars or buses on the existing Pacific/Expo or the viaducts, so there's not much headway for a pro-transit argument for keeping them; I'd rather make sure the Pacific rebuild flows smoothly.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Vin

Dumb video. We can refute all the points raised in it. They had all been argued against in this forum thread. That narrator is basically parroting Vision's lame excuses to tear down the viaducts.



The above video, exactly.

Points covered included: seismic danger, a mistake of the past, surrounding wasteland, nefarious project (to wipe off hogan Alley) and 50% underutilized roadways.

Exactly. First they made the viaducts as unappealing to take as possible; i.e. removing both a lane of traffic, and turning lanes at the end of them, adding traffic lights, making the possibility of getting stuck on them a real possibility when before it was highly unusual to ever get stuck in traffic there, then claim they aren't used to their capacity.
The seismic threat has been debunked, and they stopped doing routine maintenance on them almost hoping they'll start falling apart on their own to bolster their cause that the viaducts are at "end of life" (which they most certainly are not even close to being).

And this romanticizing Hogans Alley is the most bizarre one of all. That neighbourhood was a crime infested dump. Ask anyone who was around to see it. And nothing will bring it back. (Certainly not bland condo towers).

And when you use a once in a lifetime, world wide special event to make claims about traffic movements, you lose all credibility instantly. Even then, these morons observed the obvious; traffic will move to other streets once the viaducts are gone, making them more congested.

Comparing other cities whereby they removed redundant roadways (ignoring the fact that each of those cities have a major highway to their downtown core while Vasn does not), or replaced them with even more roads (such as Boston did), again is silly, & not rooted in fact.

And since 1996, the area has gained a major rapid transit line running from the south, greatly expanded its residential capacity within the downtown core, and between 1996 till about 2005, office development basically flatlined or in some instances, we saw office space being converted into residential so the employment increases were largely in low paying service sector jobs where nobody is travelling too far to get to.

All in all, this was a a pretty good study if done by a high school student (and it reads like one too).
And someone get that host on the video some crutches or a wheelchair as he constantly looks like he's about to tip over

[jsbertram]

[QUOTE=retro_orange;8711483>snip<[/QUOTE]

his argument that the viaducts are underused is undermined by watching all the traffic that is using the viaducts in the background, effortlessly and safely passing him on their way in to or out of downtown.

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

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.

I still blame that shanty infill of a neighborhood for this and most of the people responsible for saying NO the first time are either dead or enjoying their pension somewhere else. Who knows what things might be like if they were able to get the Viaducts to Clark or even Commercial before the overall plan was axed.
Right now it empties into otherwise hardened routes. Any speed, capacity or lane reductions now will likely never be undone. It's as bad as condemning a street to have a dedicated bike lane. You try and change that the only result will be people with starbucks in one hand and pitchforks in the other.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

And when you use a once in a lifetime, world wide special event to make claims about traffic movements, you lose all credibility instantly. Even then, these morons observed the obvious; traffic will move to other streets once the viaducts are gone, making them more congested.

They know that. They just don't care.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's what heavy traffic looks like in Langley? Lucky bastards.

Prior's its own thing, and we can discuss the infinite wisdom of City Council caving into the NIMBYs separately from the viaducts (I think we have, a page or two back). Again, there isn't a good way to run streetcars or buses on the existing Pacific/Expo or the viaducts, so there's not much headway for a pro-transit argument for keeping them; I'd rather make sure the Pacific rebuild flows smoothly.

No, but there's 'non-optimal' and 'literally useless due to congestion and lack of space to build on'. The 23 currently runs on Expo/Pacific perfectly fine. (there is the detour to Keefer I don't really understand, though)

Prior being reduced down to 2 lanes is actually good if there's no viaducts, because the last thing you want to do when you removed space for car traffic in a bottleneck is add more space for car traffic to funnel into the restricted bottleneck.


Hospital traffic is a problem, but as I said earlier, Vancouver never cared much about accommodating the New St. Paul's anyways, why'd they start now? Burrard isn't exactly empty either, anyways, and they could use Gore and Pender/Hastings, assuming the congestion there doesn't get too bad due to the viaduct removal.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

No, but there's 'non-optimal' and 'literally useless due to congestion and lack of space to build on'. The 23 currently runs on Expo/Pacific perfectly fine. (there is the detour to Keefer I don't really understand, though)

Prior being reduced down to 2 lanes is actually good if there's no viaducts, because the last thing you want to do when you removed space for car traffic in a bottleneck is add more space for car traffic to funnel into the restricted bottleneck.

Agreed. Though the 23 can easily be upgraded to a regular bus route and sent down Prior, even without four lanes - it's just going to take forever when it does.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Hospital traffic is a problem, but as I said earlier, Vancouver never cared much about accommodating the New St. Paul's anyways, why'd they start now? Burrard isn't exactly empty either, anyways, and they could use Gore and Pender/Hastings, assuming the congestion there doesn't get too bad due to the viaduct removal.

That discussion is in the St Paul's thread. IIRC, there were three good points: that many of the ER's patients come from the DTES (which is now closer), that downtown traffic is best avoided, and that the brick building will be kept as a small hospital to handle downtown patients, while the giant annexes get redeveloped.