Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Metro-One]

Posted by AlexYVR Own medicine, buddy. Taste.

"I am not your Buddy, Guy!"

*Now you have to reply saying, "I am not your Guy, Friend!"

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by lightrail

The best use of the land is to tear down the viaducts and reconnect the city street grid. Do not add any more lane capacity, just remove it. Transit into downtown Vancouver and other alternatives to the car are viable. Vancouver doesn't need the viaducts and they do not add anything to the urban environment.

How do you propose that I get downtown from the tri-cities/suburbs which are not currently well served by transit? There is no rapid transit service currently in the north-east corridor. I didn't choose to live out here personally, but I have to make do. If I were to take transit, it would take me an hour and a half from Anmore to Waterfront station according to Translink's trip planner. WCE is not an option unless I work a 9-5, and even then, no seats are available by the time the train hits Port Moody station.

Driving in via Hastings will currently take me only 45 minutes. Removing the viaducts and not replacing their lane capacity would be a friggin disaster - it'd completely clog Hastings and cause it to take just as long as taking the very slow busses to Lougheed Mall and hopping on SkyTrain. We need more than the capacity that is afforded by Quebec Street and Hastings for East-West travel.

Tearing the viaducts down will do absolutely nothing other than allow for a few more condos to be built. The CoV doesn't need the pocket change they could gain from the developments that badly to f*** up traffic in/out of downtown for people who live/work east of Port Moody for the next 10-20 years until we get some real transit connections to the rest of the region.

[johnjimbc]

No one in the city government to my knowledge has advocated removing the viaducts without replacing the lanes in some fashion.

Can we please dial back the emotional spittle a notch (or twenty)?

The world will not end if these existing viaducts remain. Likewise, it will continue if they are eventually removed.

If everyone would go throw some bricks against a wall for a few minutes before posting to calm down, it might help move the discussion along a bit. It might cut down on road rage as well .

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

How do you propose that I get downtown from the tri-cities/suburbs which are not currently well served by transit?

You could try driving, it's not like there would be roadblocks at Boundary Road.

Why is it that suburbanites have to be such drama queens about this? You act like every single journey on the viaducts is carrying a vital organ for transplant. Most of these journeys could stand being a few minutes longer - a 45 minute commute is not something protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by lightrail

I don't understand the logic to the arguments to keep the viaducts.

The viaducts already exist, so quite simply, one needs a logical reason to not keep them. Age? Safety? Development concerns? All potentially valid concerns, but all those concerns have to justify themselves, while the status quo does not.

Originally Posted by lightrail

The best use of the land is to tear down the viaducts and reconnect the city street grid.

The city street grid has never covered the area below the viaducts, so it does not implicitly need to be "reconnected". The area was a railyard and industrial wasteland for almost all of Vancouver's history - there is no lost street grid in old B&W photos to lament. As today's stewards, we can choose to use that land however we wish - there is no precedent to fall back on.

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by Zassk

The viaducts already exist, so quite simply, one needs a logical reason to not keep them. Age? Safety? Development concerns? All potentially valid concerns, but all those concerns have to justify themselves, while the status quo does not.



The city street grid has never covered the area below the viaducts, so it does not implicitly need to be "reconnected". The area was a railyard and industrial wasteland for almost all of Vancouver's history - there is no lost street grid in old B&W photos to lament. As today's stewards, we can choose to use that land however we wish - there is no precedent to fall back on.

I believe he means reconnect as in link the east with the rest of the city to replace the routing lost by the viaducts. As for the status quo vs justification of future alternatives - that's really the nail on the head, isn't it? To me, any (slow, eventual, gradual, organic) reduction in automobile traffic is a good thing (assuming it doesn't unjustly penalize one way of life without offering viable alternatives).

That's really what it comes down to for me. I'm fine if the viaducts stay in perpetuity, as long as they're opened up to the public as a park. Or if they're used as commercial-only entrances to the city; or if they're toll-only. Let the tolls pay for increased mass transit from the suburbs, not only around around downtown. By increasing the convenience for suburbanites to come downtown while simultaneously making the option of automobile travel less appealing, we create community (get people out of their cars and into public spaces), end up with a streetscape that interacts with the area around it rather than diving over or under it, and we continue to protect Vancouver environmentally while furthering our claims as a 'green city'.

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

You could try driving, it's not like there would be roadblocks at Boundary Road.

Why is it that suburbanites have to be such drama queens about this? You act like every single journey on the viaducts is carrying a vital organ for transplant. Most of these journeys could stand being a few minutes longer - a 45 minute commute is not something protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A few minutes longer, sure, but twice as long is pushing it. And that's -today-, with the population in the GVRD growing that's only going to get longer, especially with the anti-car/biking gang advocating for removal of lanes in/out of the downtown core like lightrail posted above.

When was the last time you used the viaducts, biketrouble? How often do you travel east-west? Or do you simply hang out downtown or don't travel in that direction on a regular basis on a bus or car? You don't see me posting about the removal of the vehicle lane for the bike lane on the Burrard street bridge because I don't use travel in that direction. Given that you and the others advocating for the removal of the viaducts don't seem to understand what this will do to east-west travel, I have to assume that you either live downtown and do not travel east-west, or don't go downtown at all.

[biketrouble]

"but twice as long is pushing it"

Are you suggesting that demolishing the viaducts would add 45 minutes to your driving commute? On what basis?

I work in Yaletown, live in Kitsilano and have typically used the viaducts about once a week during the summer, most often to head over to the North Shore after work via Second Narrows - at peak hours I might add. There's never any traffic on them.

I've been cycling alongside the viaducts quite a bit this week, as I often cycle the long way around False Creek to and from work, and the seawall is closed right now between Carrall Street and Edgewater. These visits have not given me the same warm and fuzzies that they have to some other posters here, I have to say.

[GeeCee]

The viaducts aren't there to give warm fuzzies, they are there for transportation. Without the viaducts, Hastings would be a parking lot during peak hours.

[Metro-One]

Is it not already? Lets see how the bike/transit only group reacts when we say it is ok to start adding a few minutes travel time to bus routes and train trips. If every minute counts on those, is it not the same for cars?

Again, having the viaducts will make transforming local surface lanes below to streetcar rails, stations, bike lanes and transit lanes that much easier.

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Again, having the viaducts will make transforming local surface lanes below to streetcar rails, stations, bike lanes and transit lanes that much easier.

Whereas having them all on one level would make them work in harmony rather than continue to exist discontiguously. It brings people back together, it gently discourages the use of the SOV, helps give some of those 'downtown snobs' a visual understanding of the suburbanites and vice versa, and it saves the environment all in one.

[Yume-sama]

You'll have to explain to me how the downtown people are the snobs, and not the ones living in multi-million dollar homes outside the core

Snobs generally don't aspire to live in a really expensive shoebox.

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

The viaducts aren't there to give warm fuzzies, they are there for transportation. Without the viaducts, Hastings would be a parking lot during peak hours.

So you assert, without any supporting evidence. I think this fear is greatly overstated. The great thing is that the city has a street grid as opposed to those arterial freeways you're used to in the suburbs, which means that there are always alternative routes. To name a few: McGill/Powell/Cordova, Terminal Avenue, Quebec, Pacific/Expo, Great Northern Way, Broadway, Grandview/12th and the Cambie Street Bridge.

I've occasionally had the misfortune to have to drive into the city from Langley in the morning, the thing that amuses me about it is that I'll be in stop-start traffic from 192nd St to Grandview, and then magically once you get onto Grandview the traffic starts to move more smoothly. Driving in Vancouver is not very exciting and often frustrating (lots of traffic lights etc) but most of the time when I get *seriously* stuck in traffic, it's out in the 'burbs.

[biketrouble]

"If every minute counts on those, is it not the same for cars"

No. Even discounting any other factors (such a pollution, CO2 etc), every minute a bus is delayed costs 30 times as much lost productive time as every minute a car is delayed, assuming there are 30 people on the bus and one in the car.

[biketrouble]

"helps give some of those 'downtown snobs' a visual understanding of the suburbanites"

I love this idea. We downtown snobs could take our children to look at the suburbanites stuck in traffic in their cages, like a zoo. You could have little informational signs alongside roads explaining about how they are an endangered species, who may one day become extinct like the dinosaurs.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

"but twice as long is pushing it"

Are you suggesting that demolishing the viaducts would add 45 minutes to your driving commute? On what basis?

I work in Yaletown, live in Kitsilano and have typically used the viaducts about once a week during the summer, most often to head over to the North Shore after work via Second Narrows - at peak hours I might add. There's never any traffic on them.

I've been cycling alongside the viaducts quite a bit this week, as I often cycle the long way around False Creek to and from work, and the seawall is closed right now between Carrall Street and Edgewater. These visits have not given me the same warm and fuzzies that they have to some other posters here, I have to say.

there's not much traffic on them cause they are doing there job helping get traffic east bound out of downtown - without them hastings, cordova etc would be a mess and much worse with idling cars

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

"helps give some of those 'downtown snobs' a visual understanding of the suburbanites"

I love this idea. We downtown snobs could take our children to look at the suburbanites stuck in traffic in their cages, like a zoo. You could have little informational signs alongside roads explaining about how they are an endangered species, who may one day become extinct like the dinosaurs.

the only time you get stuck in traffic is within Vancouver itself

driving from the west end to kits can be painful at most times - one little snarl up and traffic just sits

[biketrouble]

Where did I hear the "streets clogged with idling cars" prediction before... oh, that's right, the Burrard Bridge bike trial debate. How are those predictions working out?

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by lightrail

I don't understand the logic to the arguments to keep the viaducts. If the 1960s freeways had been built, you'd say the same about them - they move people out of the downtown.
....
The best use of the land is to tear down the viaducts and reconnect the city street grid. Do not add any more lane capacity, just remove it. Transit into downtown Vancouver and other alternatives to the car are viable. Vancouver doesn't need the viaducts and they do not add anything to the urban environment.

Bear in mind that the DT penninsula is an entry point to/from the north shore/whistler/horseshoe bay. ie, by removing lanes you might see some lessened demand, but you still have a big pipe of car traffic pumping out and drawing into the DT penninsula. Pender will likely be turned into the main east/west route to the LGB (with trolley wires and non-coordinated lights), and traffic pushed to international village/woodwards/chinatown/downtown south. you may lessen demand a bit by removing lanes, but if the LGB still remains, IMO demand will be little changed even with them gone.

I don't like advocating for car-based infrastructure, but I think the area suffers mainly from a lack of ground-level development and that the viaducts can be woven into the urban fabric well if done carefully.

[SpongeG]

well I have been stuck on Burrard a couple times since teh change - but i rarely use it so it doesn't affect me - I also don't ever see many bikes ever using it

and again there will come a day when we have pollution free cars requiring roads