Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[racc]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

(to racc) If it were a non bias study I would not be afraid of the city studying this. But it is obvious that Meggs has a set agenda.

At least hold judgement on the study until an RFP is put out or even wait until the contract is awarded.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Also, I feel that during a time of deficit, this is a huge waste of money. Money that could be spent elsewhere, such as our parks, if the agenda is to make our city so green, or into how to develop the lands around our Vancouver skytrain stations that are still dominated by single detached houses.

This is rather a weak argument since you support the spending of what likely would tens of millions of millions of dollars to "tart up" the viaducts and the space underneath. Given that there are so many other more attractive, less complicated places to build businesses such as restaurants, most of the money to "tart up" the viaducts would likely have to come from the city. This money would better be spent elsewhere, such as parks as you have suggested.

Instead of spending money to dress up the viaducts, if the study shows that the city would make a significant profit by replacing the viaducts, the city would have more money for priorities such parks and social housing. The money could even be used to implement the streetcar.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

For me this is the same as hiring the "Rail for the Valley" to conduct a study on skytrain, and if it should be expanded. Meggs already has his mind made up, and will likely force a study to meet his liking, as the rail for the valley people do against skytrain.

A real low blow comparing anyone to "Rail for the Valley". How do you know that "Meggs already has his mind made up". From my experience, Meggs is a thoughtful, reasonable and responsible councillor.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I have welcomed many of the suggestions on here that have brought up the idea of taking them down, and building a single, better designed structure in their place, or the tearing down of one but the expanding of the other to 4 lanes, etc...

But I think most here on this forum know your agenda racc.

The "agenda" is to create a great, vibrant, liveable city with a sustainable economy.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

My question to you is, if the study comes out saying "The viaducts should remain and not be altered." Will you support that decision, or will you call foul and demand another study be done?

If the study shows that there is no significant benefit to the city and the cost would be greater than any revenue (or other benefits like park space, social housing, etc.), then why bother replacing the viaducts. If the replacement of the viaducts costs the city money, I would likely support the money would be better spent elsewhere.
I ask you the same, if the study comes out saying "The viaducts should be replaced and not be altered." Will you support that decision, or will you call foul and demand another study be done?

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Also to s211, Meggs have every right to express his opinion and I do feel your attitude only damages the opinion of those of us who believe they should stay. i just personally dont agree with Meggs, as many on this forum feel.

This is the whole idea of doing studies so we can get beyond our "beliefs" and instead have a debate based on solid information about what the costs and benefits will be.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

It's easy enough to change the MRN.

Right, that's what we want to do: encourage cities to go rogue on the region.

These roads might be in Vancouver, but they are used by people from all over the region. How would people in Surrey like it if Delta closed 72nd and 64th at Scott Road because residents don't like freeway bound traffic? Or if West Vancouver tore up the overpass onto the Lions Gate bridge that people from North Vancouver use because that land could use some townhouses? Or if Langley Township decided to single lane 200 st outside of Langley City?

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Right, that's what we want to do: encourage cities to go rogue on the region.

These roads might be in Vancouver, but they are used by people from all over the region. How would people in Surrey like it if Delta closed 72nd and 64th at Scott Road because residents don't like freeway bound traffic? Or if West Vancouver tore up the overpass onto the Lions Gate bridge that people from North Vancouver use because that land could use some townhouses? Or if Langley Township decided to single lane 200 st outside of Langley City?

There's no need for extremism or radical examples. Main difference? Downtown has a compact street grid, providing motorists with a variety of options to move about the core - removing one road would modify travel time minutely. Additionally, car usage in going down in the core, while usage of alternatives are increasing, leading to the conclusion that perhaps all these roads exclusively for cars aren't exactly the best use of space in a people first city. Both variables are quite the opposite in the burbs.

[vansky]

got nothing to do, too much energy, got too much money, no where to spend...too much time, no where to —


- removing viaduct

and i really care about the man who got hit by the car, hopefully he remains alive, so he can self reflect, deeply.. and.truely madly deeply hahahah

so he can forget about the bikes, before they all get hit...

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

There's no need for extremism or radical examples. Main difference? Downtown has a compact street grid, providing motorists with a variety of options to move about the core - removing one road would modify travel time minutely. Additionally, car usage in going down in the core, while usage of alternatives are increasing, leading to the conclusion that perhaps all these roads exclusively for cars aren't exactly the best use of space in a people first city. Both variables are quite the opposite in the burbs.

Not really. Delta, West Van, and Langley have plenty of parallel roads that drivers could take, and increasingly well-used alternatives to driving. But taking out major, high-capacity routes would still be grossly unfair to the surrounding communities, and would have much the same effect: forcing lots and lots of traffic onto slow, narrow routes that were never built to handle it.

[MistyMountainHop]

Am I the only one here who thinks this idea is actually worth considering? It was the only part of the horrendous 1960s freeway plan that was actually built. I think there's a huge opportunity here to make Georgia Street into something more than just a route for cars to drive through Downtown.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by MistyMountainHop

Am I the only one here who thinks this idea is actually worth considering? It was the only part of the horrendous 1960s freeway plan that was actually built. I think there's a huge opportunity here to make Georgia Street into something more than just a route for cars to drive through Downtown.

No, I don't think so. I can imagine many in Vancouver will like the idea. I'm waiting to see what the report says before I start throwing rocks at it. I trust the majority of residents of the city will be doing the same.

If the report comes up with viable measures to alleviate the loss of the viaducts; then we might just see a majority in favour.

Not everyone has the esthetic sophistication to grasp the exquisite pulchritude of our splendid cement spans.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by lezard

No, I don't think so. I can imagine many in Vancouver will like the idea. I'm waiting to see what the report says before I start throwing rocks at it. I trust the majority of residents of the city will be doing the same.

If the report comes up with viable measures to alleviate the loss of the viaducts; then we might just see a majority in favour.

Not everyone has the esthetic sophistication to grasp the exquisite pulchritude of our splendid cement spans.

Not everything is about good looks, sometimes practicality and livability has an ugly face.

[WarrenC12]

Waste of time and money, and we don't have much of either to spare right now.

Meggs should put his effort into the streetcar or the UBC rapid transit project. Those should be the #1 and #2 efforts of the COV regarding transportation right now.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Not everything is about good looks, sometimes practicality and livability has an ugly face.

Sarcasm sometimes just skuds by above our heads, doesn't it.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by lezard

Sarcasm sometimes just skuds by above our heads, doesn't it.

You used too many big words.

[LeftCoaster]

I dont know about that, it certainly seems as though he just made one up though.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I dont know about that, it certainly seems as though he just made one up though.

Shakespeare created thousands, but I invented not even one. All in the dictionary. Although the spelling might be novel.

[Canadian Mind]

Not all of us have a copy of Websters or Oxford immediately accessible.

[LeftCoaster]

^ Well since you posted this on the internet I would imagine that is untrue

http://www.merriam-webster.com/
http://dictionary.oed.com/entrance.dtl

Originally Posted by lezard

Shakespeare created thousands, but I invented not even one. All in the dictionary. Although the spelling might be novel.

Haha if I'm not mistaken you just compared your online forum posts to Shakespeare... its so outrageous its somehow acceptable.

The spelling certainly was novel, but Cs are close enough to Ks that I guess the point got across.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

^ Well since you posted this on the internet I would imagine that is untrue

http://www.merriam-webster.com/
http://dictionary.oed.com/entrance.dtl



Haha if I'm not mistaken you just compared your online forum posts to Shakespeare... its so outrageous its somehow acceptable.

The spelling certainly was novel, but Cs are close enough to Ks that I guess the point got across.

Read for skud, scud. Typo. And I did no such thing. Read the post again.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by MistyMountainHop

Am I the only one here who thinks this idea is actually worth considering? It was the only part of the horrendous 1960s freeway plan that was actually built. I think there's a huge opportunity here to make Georgia Street into something more than just a route for cars to drive through Downtown.

It does give a freeway vibe, but looking back at archive photos, there has always been a viaduct in that location across the old railyards since around 1910. If we were to tear it down, that would be unprecedented in most of Vancouver's history.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

It's easy enough to change the MRN.

No it ain't. The City of Vancouver in 1998 already confirmed the drawbacks about including any of the city's roads in the MRN. I would suggest that one of those drawbacks is that once a road has been placed in the MRN, that's it. No turning back.

And the City of Vancouver is superceded by Translink and it's MRN by-law. I doubt that Translink has any intention to rescind the by-law, on behalf of the region, and remove the Georgia viaduct from the MRN.

This is a region-centric matter, not a city or downtown Vancouver centric matter.

[s211]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Talk about going overboard. What the hell is "real-world transportation" anyways? Cars, cars, and more cars?!

Well it isn't "no cars, no cars, and no more cars" either, bub.

It's a full spectrum, and one that needs to be balanced. Unless one thinks that there's a "paradigm shift" coming, if ever there was a more overused term...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Waste of time and money, and we don't have much of either to spare right now.

Meggs should put his effort into the streetcar or the UBC rapid transit project. Those should be the #1 and #2 efforts of the COV regarding transportation right now.

Exactly. One has to wonder if the people blithely advocating spending taxpayers's money are actually taxpaying residents of Vancouver.

This whole issue has less to do with what's good for Vancouver, than former Strathcona resident Meggs trying to relive last century's battles over the viaducts/proposed freeway system.