Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by 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?

Apples and oranges. crossing false creek you have 20 lanes on 3 bridges that are all close together, and now plus flow from the canada line. Taking out 1 lane for a bike lane won't cause massive disruption. It only did so the first time because of the half-hearted attempt from the NPA.

I think of the viaducts being a natural extension of the LGB.

[jlousa]

The viaducts are not going anywhere. You will see the plans destined for the area late this year.
Everything else is purely theoretical, nothing wrong with that, but this thread is getting personal and not advancing anywhere. If things don't turn around it will be closed.

[deasine]

It would also be a good time to remind people when responding the multiple users, you shouldn't do multiple posts.

[Metro-One]

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?

How does closing 1 lane in an area that has 3 major bridge connections compare to removing 6 lanes from a direction that is not served as well?

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.

I guess we should also make the entire skytrain system surface running as well, no more subways or skytrains. Why stop at that, lets funnel all the car, bike, pedestrian & train traffic onto one road and watch the harmony.

Harmony exists best with layers when a city reaches the 2-3 million mark and above, especially its heart.

Also, the 'downtown snobs' comment was not my comment.

[officedweller]

The difference is that Granville Bridge was undercapacity and easily absorbed the redistrbution of traffic from Burrard. The alternatives towards the eastside are a bit more circuitous because of the escarpment and the receiving roads are narrower.

Eastbound:
To access Pacific Boulevard (and Terminal Ave.) you would have to do so at Nelson St. which is already busy with Cambie Bridge traffic and the short section of Nelson under the bridge regularly backs up with traffic accessing Pacific Boulevard. Alternatively, you could take Pender St. to Abbott, Carrall St. or Columbia/Quebec St. to get to Terminal Ave. Staying north, Hastings Street or West Cordova St. would take you east too - but note that the City has designated Pender St. as a transit and bike route - so there is only one travelled car lane in each direction.

Westbound:
From Terminal Ave. traffic could filter through Quebec St./Columbia St., Carrall St. and Abbott St. to Pender St. instead of going all the way around BC Place to Smithe St. Traffic on Water St., Hastings St. and Pender St. would just stay on those routes.

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

How does closing 1 lane in an area that has 3 major bridge connections compare to removing 6 lanes from a direction that is not served as well?

Correct, the proposals are quite different - but the loudness and confidence of the predictions of doom are exactly the same. My guess is that the wrongness might be, too.

(Updated: made this somewhat less of a snark at individuals in the interests of keeping things on track.)
(One more update: there are only two lanes on Dunsmuir viaduct, so we're discussing removing at most 5 lanes not 6.)

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I guess we should also make the entire skytrain system surface running as well, no more subways or skytrains.

Harmony exists best with layers when a city reaches the 2-3 million mark and above, especially its heart.

Also, the 'downtown snobs' comment was not my comment.

I agree with you on the layers aspect; however, for me, the difference between SOV and Skytrain is that people are isolated in cars. People on the skytrain are already interacting with their surroundings (other people on the skytrain, the stations, etc). There's a chance for human interaction - or at least the knowledge that other people in the city exist, as opposed to a garage-to-garage drive where you see no one but yourself. That's why I'm for the integration of roadways onto a level that interacts with human scale rather than lifts people above it or out of it.


Also, Jlousa, you're right. I think this is one of the most interesting threads we've had in a long time because all these brains are finally debating a single, large, pertinent future issue - and both sides are coming up with some great points. I'll try hard to stick to topic.

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

I seem to recall speculation that it won't be. Though, it depends how well the Olympic trial goes.

I'll definitely take it a few times to Granville Island to help it out.

Won't get built? Oi. That really sucks if that happens.

Is there reason why the streetcar line won't get built? Is it because there is no money? Or are there other reasons?

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Vancity

Is there reason why the streetcar line won't get built? Is it because there is no money? Or are there other reasons?

Go read the Vancouver Streetcar Thread under Transportation. Quite a lot of information there.

[biketrouble]

Officedweller: you're assuming there's no possibility that Georgia and Dunsmuir might be made to connect with Expo & Pacific. Since the viaducts run above those streets right now, this doesn't seem like a completely solid assumption. Also, who is to say that the at-grade streets in NEFC could not connect with Prior at Main St?

[deasine]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

Officedweller: you're assuming there's no possibility that Georgia and Dunsmuir might be made to connect with Expo & Pacific. Since the viaducts run above those streets right now, this doesn't seem like a completely solid assumption. Also, who is to say that the at-grade streets in NEFC could not connect with Prior at Main St?

Expo cannot connect with Dunsmuir because of the SkyTrain guideway, as stated countless times earlier. There can't be an incline with a slope of 1:1. Diverting Georgia traffic down to Pacific, leading into Quebec would require some sort of an intersection upgrade to the already busy intersection at National & Quebec. But again, lowering Georgia to Pacific requires quite a bit of distance, so a part of the viaduct structure must remain.

[biketrouble]

The Dunsmuir viaduct crosses Expo about 200 metres from the intersection with Beatty Street. Are you seriously suggesting that Beatty is 200 metres above the level of Expo?

[deasine]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

The Dunsmuir viaduct crosses Expo about 200 metres from the intersection with Beatty Street. Are you seriously suggesting that Beatty is 200 metres above the level of Expo?

That's not what I'm suggesting. My 1:1 slope ratio is simply an exageration, but the slope must be a gradual one.

By the way, it should be calculated from Citadele Parade and not Beatty, that's assuming you will be taking apart the sidewalk of GM Place, where it is integrated into the structure of the viaducts.

[lightrail]

From a planning point of view, the road network in the False Creek flats is a mess. Expo Blvd and Pacific Blvd around GM Place completely ignore the urban fabric - they're more like suburban roads and they really don't work.

My problem with the Viaducts is that they take up a lot of room and create a barrier in the flats. I agree they can be incorporated into the urban environment, but I can't see how it would create a welcoming urban pedestrian environment. To me, keeping the viaducts because they create a "big city feel" is just silly.

I'm not sure what do do with the Skytrain line because it does dip down to pass under the viaducts; the line obviously should stay and can be incorporated into the urban form; but the dip is a problem.

Not only do I think the viaducts should be removed, but I also think Pacific Blvd and Expo Blvd need rethinking.

The reconnected grid would be largely as seen on this 1929 map - new roads may be required south of Georgia on the old rail lands, but the streets would continue and extend the city grid creating a much more walkable city in that area.


source:http://www.vanc.igs.net

Yes removing the viaducts would remove a fast route over the flats into the city, but we're not talking a big saving in travel time at all; in a city that halted the freeways and is proud not have a freeway in the city, surely removing the viaducts is in keeping with the city's vision to make the city green and less dependent on the automobile.

Somebody mentioned the need for routes for electric cars. Electric cars are not the answer; even if we have them, we've removed pollution but still have congestion. That won't go away if we cater to the car, even if the car is electric.

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by deasine

That's not what I'm suggesting. My 1:1 slope ratio is simply an exageration, but your slope must be a gradual one.

By the way, it should be calculated from Citadele Parade and not Beatty, that's assuming you will be taking apart the sidewalk of GM Place, where it is integrated into the structure of the viaducts.

What you mean is, Citadele Parade is the edge of the original escarpment, right? But that doesn't mean that the slope of Dunsmuir down to Expo need start there - it could actually start anywhere west of there, depending on your tolerance for digging trenches or tunnels (Not sure where the skytrain tunnel limits this, though.)

[vanman]

I agree with you on the layers aspect; however, for me, the difference between SOV and Skytrain is that people are isolated in cars. People on the skytrain are already interacting with their surroundings (other people on the skytrain, the stations, etc). There's a chance for human interaction - or at least the knowledge that other people in the city exist, as opposed to a garage-to-garage drive where you see no one but yourself. That's why I'm for the integration of roadways onto a level that interacts with human scale rather than lifts people above it or out of it.

This is all purely ideological. And I don't see how integrating pedestrians and cyclists with vehicles is a good, or more importantly safe thing to do.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

What you mean is, Citadele Parade is the edge of the original escarpment, right? But that doesn't mean that the slope of Dunsmuir down to Expo need start there - it could actually start anywhere west of there, depending on your tolerance for digging trenches or tunnels (Not sure where the skytrain tunnel limits this, though.)

Yeah of course that would make logical sense because the CoV has infinite amount of money.

Even if you start at Beatty, the distance it takes to make a logical, gradual transition is about at Carrall St. Abbott St. will have to be closed south of Expo as a result. I think Expo Blvd might barely make it west of Abbott going under the viaduct.

As for vanman, integration with pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles is what creates livable areas of the city. The problem is, where is it possible.

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by vanman

This is all purely ideological. And I don't see how integrating pedestrians and cyclists with vehicles is a good, or more importantly safe thing to do.

Ideological perhaps, but in the same way that 'having more green space is healthy'. It's proven through various studies (as well as being the base argument for nearly everything Jane Jacobs wrote) that interaction between groups of people breeds tolerance and increased civic pride. Being aware of your surroundings makes you feel more ownership of them.

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by deasine

Even if you start at Beatty, the distance it takes to make a logical, gradual transition is about at Carrall St.

If you don't mind me asking, what's your qualification for making this statement? There are many steeper streets in this city alone.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

Officedweller: you're assuming there's no possibility that Georgia and Dunsmuir might be made to connect with Expo & Pacific. Since the viaducts run above those streets right now, this doesn't seem like a completely solid assumption. Also, who is to say that the at-grade streets in NEFC could not connect with Prior at Main St?

If you bring Georgia and Dunsmuir down to Expo and Pacific Blvds (ignoring gradients, etc.), then what you have (unless you divert all traffic from Expo up to Dunsmuir and all Georgia traffic to Pacific and close off Pacific and Expo near BC Place) is a couple of on-ramps and off-ramps to/from Dunsmuir and Georgia - which could be worse than having the viaducts overhead in the status quo (think of the Cambie bridge ramp near Cooper's Park and the physical obstruction it presents - now times that by two). Given that there is a separate pedestrian realm in the form of the GM Place steps and the future Georgia steps near BC Place to go up and down the escarpment, I don't think that having a ramp with a sidewalk is an improvement over what exists now.

If you go the tunnel route (ignoring utility relocation, expenses, etc.) - you can probably assume that pedestrians will not be allowed in the tunnel (i.e. Cordova ramp to Waterfront Road) - so on ideological grounds, it is worse than the viaducts, since it would be a huge expense and only for vehicles - the viaducts at least have sidewalks.