Quote:
Originally Posted by racc
Please learn how to make a logical argument. Your response is a ridiculous interpretation and an extreme overreaction. My point was against the continued overuse of land for roads, nothing else. There are plenty of other options for people who must drive. The increase in housing near downtown will increase the viability of downtown as a business centre. The removal of the viaducts will not have an impact on the viability at all. This is just the same overreaction that occurred before the Burrard Bridge Trial. 30 years ago, the same lame arguments were being used to support freeway construction which would have decreased the liveability of downtown and the city.
For the last century, hundreds of thousands of homes have been destroyed to build freeways. What is wrong with tearing down an under-utilized viaduct to make room for badly needed housing and park space.
|
Vancouver is probably the last city in the word to have done so. I find this "anti-freeway" movement to be a wicker-man chase. I completely agree that building
American style city freeways where huge swaths of land are used to build such structures, and sometimes, completely encircle a downtown area is a horrible idea, but that being said, there are other ways to build such structures! Again, look at the vast majority of European and Asian cities that have such freeways running through, or coming very close, to their central cores!
The viaducts we have can easily be built into the urban fabric. Again, we have listed the many options that can be done (park underneath, bike/walking paths underneath sheltered from the rain! markets/commercial space built underneath, a future OMC for the streetcar, etc...) Simply look at the westernmost 300 meters of the viaducts, they are completely absorbed into the urban fabric!
There is also a gigantic difference between taking 1 lane of traffic away from the Burrard street bridge and taking down the viaducts. First of all, the Burrard street bike project took 1 lane away, not 6! Second, the north/south corridor is serviced by three high capacity arteries, the east west corridor is only serviced by the one (the viaducts). Third, in the near future, more lanes are planned to be taken away and or marginalized from the surface streets along our tiny east/west land bridge when the new streetcar is eventually pushed through and more traffic calming measures/biking infrastructure is put in place.
Again, Vancouver downtown is 80% cut off by water!!!!! We don't have the luxury of a continuous street grid accessing our downtown from all sides, or even half its sides.
It is insane to think it is a good idea to take 6 lanes of traffic away from an area, and then jam all that traffic with pedestrians, bikes and a new tram system together on a small 2km wide land bridge (not to mention then jamming that land bridge with condos, essentially making them residential neighborhood streets).
If one thinks that the viaducts are under utilized, then maybe we should build the local streets in a fashion where all of the industrial, commercial, freight, emergency and cross regional traffic is funneled onto them! This would then leave the surface streets in perfect condition to be traffic calmed, have the trams implemented with minimal disruption, and have a safer atmosphere for pedestrians and cyclists!
But then again, there are those who want to put all their eggs into one basket!
Just because one is a cyclists and an environmentalist does not mean you have to join the anti-freeway bandwagon. Instead, one can join the anti-poorly designed freeway and poor land zoning bandwagon. Freeways, if utilized and designed properly, can actually enhance local areas and urban fabric.
Prev
Linear Mode
