Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Yume-sama]

And for some reason they stopped using the horse and buggie!

Japan has good incentives to use transit. Usually companies will pay for peoples transportation from their home station, to the work station, and often, large companies will offer a shuttle from the station to the office / workplace.

But yes, not everybody (or even the majority) works for people like that.

You are right that Japan has a large middle class. It's nice they don't have politicians who tax them to where they can't afford a car, like hmm... Copenhagen

It's not outlandish to assume that our government would probably lean towards supporting over taxation to control peoples lifestyle, to be dependent on them to provide services the private sector could provide better.

[jlousa]

Don't forgot to take into account the Japenese's government deficit spending to make Japan what it is. They have a debt to gdp ratio of 173% vs ours of 63%. Can you imagine our infrastructure if we were to triple our federal debt to match their ratio. An extra $1Trillion spread across the country would equate to a lil over $100Billion just for BC. I'd imagine we'd have a few more skytrain lines, highways, hospitals, social housing etc etc.
Personally I don't envy Japan as they will be facing an enormous cash crunch when all the infrastructure starts needing upgrading within the next ~20yrs and they will not be able to finance it.

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Don't forgot to take into account the Japenese's government deficit spending to make Japan what it is. They have a debt to gdp ratio of 173% vs ours of 63%. Can you imagine our infrastructure if we were to triple our federal debt to match their ratio. An extra $1Trillion spread across the country would equate to a lil over $100Billion just for BC. I'd imagine we'd have a few more skytrain lines, highways, hospitals, social housing etc etc.
Personally I don't envy Japan as they will be facing an enormous cash crunch when all the infrastructure starts needing upgrading within the next ~20yrs and they will not be able to finance it.

Not to mention their aging population, and existing protectionist policies.

Though, the new government has pledged to make immigration easier... meaning, actually possible for most people.

[Metro-One]

I think every developed nation is facing the same aging population factor. (Interesting note, the aging population in Canada is a major factor fueling Kelowna's growth, since it is Canada's sunbelt mass amounts of seniors are moving there).

They were doing a large amount of guide-way upgrades when I was there this past 4 weeks.

I am not arguing that Vancouver be just like Japan, but i am showing how out of whack Vancouver is when it believes it's only 1km long viaducts are a huge development problem, such a joke, and that a few more layered structures in Vancouver would not be a bad idea (highway and train). And by the way, i do support tougher licensing rules and tolls on major highways (if the major highways are built to Japanese or European standards and all toll revenue goes back into maintaining the roads instead of general revenue).

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by cornholio

The ability to to go from any point to any point at any time at a reasonable, fast and predictable speed is priceless

This statement is easily proven false: in jurisdictions where cars are more heavily taxed, cars are used less and transit is used more, which demonstrates that there is a limit to what people are prepared to pay for the freedom that you describe - therefore it is not "priceless".

You also unfortunately seem to be taking "efficiency" in this context to mean "what is most efficient for me, personally." It doesn't.

[Yume-sama]

Well, I knew you wouldn't be in the camp who is against over taxation to control peoples lifestyles to fit in to what YOU consider idyllic.

Just wait, they'll come for your Starbucks and Birkenstocks soon!

[Metro-One]

Yep, everyone is different! That is why it is important to have variety in a city! Especially in a geographically constrained city core.

Also the idea of forcing people into transit by making driving infrastructure worse is a terrible approach, instead, one should strive to make transit better. That way shipping, businesses and all aspects of a city stay healthy.

Metro-Vancouver will be 3 million around 10 years from now, I am sure there will always be a justified demand for a single high capacity east/west road route into the downtown core, especially when you add up all the freight, commercial, off hours commuters, contract workers, buses (transit, tour, special), out of city tourists, emergency vehicles, family trips, etc... that a 3 million person metro area will demand on its central core (and again, a central core that is 80% surrounded by water) even if transit is fantastic.

It is great for our city to have secondary cores, such as Metrotown, Richmond, Surrey, etc... but the primary core should, and hopefully will remain downtown, therefore it is best to keep all avenues open, especially when the few east/west surface roads into the downtown core are expected to under go traffic calming measures themselves, the introduction of a surface tram, the introduction of more pedestrians through residential towers, and more biking infrastructure.

To me, it is obvious to have at least have one 4 lane elevated structure in the area to hold this traffic and divert it away from the local streets in our situation. (geographical constraints, growing population, etc...)

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Well, I knew you wouldn't be in the camp who is against over taxation to control peoples lifestyles to fit in to what YOU consider idyllic.

I fail to see how this attack on my motives is relevant to a simple statement that rail is more efficient at moving people than cars - it's a complete non-sequitur.

(Edit: I wrote a lot more here but am trying not to go wildly OT.)

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

This statement is easily proven false: in jurisdictions where cars are more heavily taxed, cars are used less and transit is used more, which demonstrates that there is a limit to what people are prepared to pay for the freedom that you describe - therefore it is not "priceless".

You also unfortunately seem to be taking "efficiency" in this context to mean "what is most efficient for me, personally." It doesn't.

The government does not deserve any more of our tax money, for failure-bound attempts to restrict our freedom. They tried that in the Soviet Union, didn't work out so well (though they got swell subways )

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

This statement is easily proven false: in jurisdictions where cars are more heavily taxed, cars are used less and transit is used more, which demonstrates that there is a limit to what people are prepared to pay for the freedom that you describe - therefore it is not "priceless".

You also unfortunately seem to be taking "efficiency" in this context to mean "what is most efficient for me, personally." It doesn't.

I will have to disagree with you once again. Its pretty obvious that when you increase the cost of something then its net benefit will decrease, eventually to the point when it no longer has the greatest net benefit. Your statement proves nothing. The problem is that as you change the cost of something artificially then you still dont change reality, and that is that you lower efficiency and increase costs where you dont want costs to increase and in the grand scheme of things hurt the economy. In theory for your example the overall costs should be greater then what is taken in with taxation.

Now im playing a bit of a devils advocate. I am for more transit, for more cleaner energy sources, improved efficiency or replacement of the combustion engine, but I also understand that we need a balance and that the automobile plays a major role in the world. I also understand that nothing is constant, today cars are bad, tomorrow they will be good, etc, hence balance to hedge against a uncertain future. You are not convincing me that there is a serious reason to knock these viaducts down and to discourage car use beyond simple management(to maximize the efficiency of both car use, transit and movement of goods..at the same time). When you knock those viaducts down then thats it, their gone, right now their not really in the way like has been mentioned, the city is huge and land is plentiful(contrary to popular belief), I see absolutely no reason to tear them down, especially when their perfect condition.

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The government does not deserve any more of our tax money, for failure-bound attempts to restrict our freedom. They tried that in the Soviet Union, didn't work out so well (though they got swell subways )

This thread has gone to the dogs again.

For goodness sake, I could easily say the same about how the predominance of freeways (lack of rail), made possible in many cases by the uprooting of existing rail infrastructure, has used my tax money to restrict my freedom, and continues to do so. Any "freedom"-based justification for whether to keep those 'ducts up or rip them down does more harm to the discussion than good.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

This thread has gone to the dogs again.

For goodness sake, I could easily say the same about how the predominance of freeways (lack of rail), made possible in many cases by the uprooting of existing rail infrastructure, has used my tax money to restrict my freedom, and continues to do so. Any "freedom"-based justification for whether to keep those 'ducts up or rip them down does more harm to the discussion than good.

While the "ripping up rail" talking point works well for LA, it has little relevance for Vancouver. Our interurban was not "ripped up" by big, bad General Motors. It was taken out of service by its operator, BC Hydro, to make way for more flexible trolley bus service.

Similarly our intercity rail largely disappeared because its customer deserted it for faster methods of travel, namely airlines.

[geoff's two cents]

I didn't say anything about GM, and I don't like conspiracy theories generally.

My point, articulated poorly perhaps, is that an ideologically-based discussion tying one side of the viaducts debate or the other to extreme right or left sides of the political spectrum (ie. your mention of the Soviet Union) is unproductive and misguided. Whether the 'ducts stand or fall in a few years time will be determined less by some abstract, feel-good notion of "freedom" (a term that can be abused to mean just about anything) than by a hard-nosed business case that looks carefully at the city's economic trajectory (I discuss this in a previous post), and what it stands to gain or lose by leaving such existing infrastructure in place.

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The government does not deserve any more of our tax money, for failure-bound attempts to restrict our freedom.

This whole anti-tax schtick is completely dopey. Good luck trying to find a government that does not use taxation as a tool to influence consumer and business behaviour.

[racc]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

I didn't say anything about GM, and I don't like conspiracy theories generally.

My point, articulated poorly perhaps, is that an ideologically-based discussion tying one side of the viaducts debate or the other to extreme right or left sides of the political spectrum (ie. your mention of the Soviet Union) is unproductive and misguided. Whether the 'ducts stand or fall in a few years time will be determined less by some abstract, feel-good notion of "freedom" (a term that can be abused to mean just about anything) than by a hard-nosed business case that looks carefully at the city's economic trajectory (I discuss this in a previous post), and what it stands to gain or lose by leaving such existing infrastructure in place.

Exactly. Why should the city leave the viaducts standing so people can drive over them for free when it could possibly make millions of dollars selling the land for development and or use the land for badly needed park space. Taxes could actually be lowered. The anti-tax arguments are just not relevant nor are the "taking away my freedom" ones.

I would love to have a free house and free cappuccinos but this is not the world we live in. For people to expect that the city should continue to let them drive for free the over the viaduct when it is worth more to the city to tear it down is essentially arguing against the free market.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by racc

Exactly. Why should the city leave the viaducts standing so people can drive over them for free when it could possibly make millions of dollars selling the land for development and or use the land for badly needed park space. Taxes could actually be lowered. The anti-tax arguments are just not relevant nor are the "taking away my freedom" ones.

I would love to have a free house and free cappuccinos but this is not the world we live in. For people to expect that the city should continue to let them drive for free the over the viaduct when it is worth more to the city to tear it down is essentially arguing against the free market.

First of all, park space is not badly needed in Vancouver, we already have loooots of park space, and, park space can be built under the viaducts! (look at the skate park). Not every park in Vancouver needs to be identical to each other. Also, is there not a park directly north of the ducts? (and some park space around Science World)?

Second, the money made from developing the area will be greatly off set by the cost to tear them down, and reconfigure the entire street grid below. Not to mention the economic losses in reducing capacity into the Central Business District and the slower traffic that will ensue.

As mentioned many times before businesses can actually be built below the ducts (n the Japanese pictures I have shown) and condos can be built within inches of the ducts (as I have again shown from pics in Japan) therefore giving people of lower incomes a chance to own condos downtown (instead of all of them being tailored for the middle high and above).

Not to mention proper noise barriers can be built along the ducts and a small toll can be implemented on them (1 dollar each way) for example.

In fact, the best idea in order to make downtown livable, is to keep the ducts, and connect them properly to Malkin avenue, build Makin Avenue over the railroad and connect it to Clark drive (essentially one would be extending the ducts to Clark Drive) and then implement an electronic tool on the ducts. Them one could do traffic calming along all the surface roads in the area, designating them properly for local traffic, making the region far more livable. Then all of the industrial, commercial, emergency and through traffic will be off the local streets. This will also make it easier to implement the street car (and take away lanes from the local streets).

Essentially, we could design our system where all such traffic is forced onto the ducts! Again, the surface streets in Japan are amazingly calm and pedestrian/bike friendly (for cities of 20-30 million people) because they have discovered and implemented layers properly! And Vancouver has the same chance with its current ducts to implement such a system. And as shown before, there is a lot that can be built under and around our ducts.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by racc

Exactly. Why should the city leave the viaducts standing so people can drive over them for free when it could possibly make millions of dollars selling the land for development and or use the land for badly needed park space. Taxes could actually be lowered. The anti-tax arguments are just not relevant nor are the "taking away my freedom" ones.

I would love to have a free house and free cappuccinos but this is not the world we live in. For people to expect that the city should continue to let them drive for free the over the viaduct when it is worth more to the city to tear it down is essentially arguing against the free market.

And who's money exactly do you think actually built the viaducts in the first place? Is it not a disservice to BC taxpayers to demolish perfectly functioning infrastructure (with a price tag of unknown millions) based solely on ideology? Imagine if the BC Conservatives took power and then decided to tear down the skytrain network because they don't believe in spending public resources on rapid transit!

[Millennium2002]

It seems we need things to cool down here.

Everyone's been pretty much talking about how the viaducts take up some valuable space (note that I don't mean all of the space, just parts of it, especially the land where the Dunsmuir viaduct currently sits on). That is true, but part of the problem also lies with the developers. Most of them want to go conventional when it comes to building towers... it's cheap while still allowing for quality buildings, and people normally don't complain about that. However, building in the middle of the existing viaducts would pose an unusual challenge. The building would have to be narrow, and you won't get a lot of floor space. Being squeezed in between two viaducts is also something a little unheard of in Vancouver, and people will probably not be used to that. In short, no money will go towards the developers, and the developers won't build anything on that land.

In a way you can complain to the developers for not building "smart" but to them it's not "smart" to build there with the constraints issued when there are other less restricted sites that they can choose from.

I know a number of people have asked for social housing developments to be built in that space. That isn't a bad idea; it'd provide a good number of homes for one of the most impoverished areas of Vancouver. However, the city or the province or a non-profit will need to pay for that, and everyone knows how well their finances are doing right now.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by racc

Exactly. Why should the city leave the viaducts standing so people can drive over them for free when it could possibly make millions of dollars selling the land for development and or use the land for badly needed park space. Taxes could actually be lowered.

That depends on how many tax-paying businesses currently benefit from the existence of the viaducts (e.g. for deliveries, service, or customers), and to what extent their business would be affected by the viaducts' removal. City tax revenue could certainly be adversely affected by removing them. My point is, you don't know whether the land is of greater value to the city overall as a traffic corridor or as developed land. Without a credible study behind it, your statement has no weight.

[Alex Mackinnon]

It doesn't really seem all that different than building oddly shaped buildings to fit into weirdly shaped view cones now does it? If there was even a chance that the buildings like that oddly shaped Amacon tower concept could have been built then it doesn't seem like all that much of stretch to assume that some useful floorplate could be wrought out of the land between the viaducts. A couple more GM place towers and we're a long way towards that.