Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Spoolmak]

Practicality over beauty. For once Van should stick with practicality

[Canadian Mind]

Thanks, now everyone is going to miss my monster post.

As for the Granville Island Bridge, it helps give Granville Island a lot of it's character, and for that reason I think every attempt should be made to preserve the bridge, or should the time come for a replacement, rebuild a bridge that has the same gritty feel to it underneath.

As for uses up top, why not make the bridge a future streetcar route providing downtown with another, more local rail link to the Broadway corridor; dropping the bridge down to 6 lanes, (or even 5/4 with bike Lanes) should future traffic patterns allow for it?

[Spoolmak]

Oops. But i agree

[officedweller]

That's right! take down all of the False Creek bridges.
Make everyone take the Canada Line or if they want the view - the Aquabus.
Back to the good old days.
We could have a fleet of 500 Aquabuses plying the waters of False Creek - maybe even cable driven.

[Canadian Mind]

Funny, I figured it would be a good idea to simply cut off downtown from the rest of the road network. Would avoid causing traffic chaos, and everyone would get to use transit!

[Spoolmak]

It would be a giant pedestrian mall!

[Canadian Mind]

Imagine how many billions the city and whole country would lose in economic activity because of that. It would be incredible.

[invisibleairwaves]

If aesthetics are what we're after, we should totally take out the Granville or Cambie bridge instead. They're all equally hideous, but the viaducts can be mostly hidden by new buildings and integrated into the surrounding area. Kinda hard to cover up the bridges. And hey, everyone can just take the Burrard bridge, right?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by racc

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?

Well, if the study showed itself to be solid and non bias, yes, but we already know there is an alternative motive behind this, and please, Meggs is a huge one sided councilor. And yes, I do compare this to the rail for the valley in fact I find both movements very similar, and I find it rather interesting that Meggs is also now a councilor who supports LRT down Broadway (surface). So it shows it to me he has no true idea about creating decent transportation within cities.

Thank you Zassk, Spoolmark, Canadian Mind & Office Dweller. Nice to see some people around here are still reasonable.

Again, here are the points:

Downtown is 80% cut off by water! We don't have the "continuous grid" many cities do, or even a 50% grid.

There are very few east/west connections to downtown, and the ducts are the only high capacity road.

The majority of the metro-region is directly EAST of downtown Vancouver, making that thin sliver of a corridor very important.

Keeping the ducts allows us to create a unique neighbourhood / area, such as below Granville Island.

If traffic calming and reducing lanes is the goal, then how about we reduce the SURFACE lanes, especially since when the condos go up these roads will become primarily local neighborhood streets with parks nearby! Does it not make sense to have these SURFACE streets as the calm livable streets? With all cross regional traffic (that is right, some people are just driving through for the Lions Gate), industrial, commercial and emergency traffic funneled onto the ducts, away from where people live, play and bike?

Then there is the new streetcar (which I hope goes through), as it is proposed now, it will take away several lanes of east / west surface road capacity, further adding to congestion if the plan is to put all of our vehicle, bike, pedestrian and tram traffic onto the thin spit of land connecting downtown to the majority of the Metro, not to mention many of these streets will now be designated local neighborhood streets for condos. Then there is also the streetcar OMC, it seems that under the viaducts are the only viable place to put such a facility.

Having a few condos facing the viaducts may actually give lower income residents and families in Metro-Vancouver to live downtown, wont that help commuting and social welfare?

Look at the stadiums, Spectrum, the new GM tower and other proposed developments, many of these are among or most interesting designs, it almost seems as if having the ducts will create a unique neighbourhood in feel and design, as specified earlier, instead of yet another Yaletown...(Again, I love Yaletown, but I do wish all of downtown were not becoming Yaletown, districts make a city interesting...

As Jlousa has pointed out there is very little real estate gain to made by taking down the ducts. If that is the issue, why doesn't Megg's and others target the view cones to build taller buildings? Not to mention all of the other low rise, empty areas around Vancouver that do not involve taking down mid life infrastructure.

There is still the escarpment to deal with, hmmm, elevated ramps?????

I could go on.....

This is 100% a wicker man chase.

[Canadian Mind]

Speaking of the Streetcar, I wonder if the city let up on the NEFC park space for more development in exchange for the developers to subsidize part of the streetcar network through that area?

Anyone else have thoughts on streetcar funding being part of the amenities for future downtown development? Or impose a required levy on all future developments to help cover costs of Streetcar and/or other forms of transit?

[racc]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Well, if the study showed itself to be solid and non bias, yes, but we already know there is an alternative motive behind this, and please, Meggs is a huge one sided councilor. And yes, I do compare this to the rail for the valley in fact I find both movements very similar...

Actually, if you want to be real, it is the people that don't want the viaducts that have same mistrust of people and organizations that rail for the valley seems to have. Just like rail for the valley doesn't trust studies by TransLink, you don't seem to be willing to trust a study by the city. Even worse, you are rejecting the study even though there are no previous studies that you can point to as being biased. At least rail for the valley can point to a history of studies that are flawed.

How about waiting for the results of the study before judging one way or the other. Anything else is being very close minded.

[racc]

Originally Posted by Zassk

The focus on the viaducts smells of ulterior motives. Consider this: why not tear down Granville Bridge instead?

There are so many possibilities if you want to start eliminating infrastructure to make room for condo development. The viaducts are poor candidates in terms of cost/benefit and are some of the youngest infrastructure in the city. It doesn't make sense to obsess over them... unless one has some ulterior motive for doing so.

I guess I should buy stock in tin foil hat companies.

[jlousa]

I've been advocating for an area specific CAC that would go towards the streetcar. We can only hope it pans out, it wouldn't need to be very high and would go a very long way towards paying for the line. To be honest the climate kind of — for a new CAC but you never know.

Traffic has been declining YOY with the viaducts still in place, so why try and force change? Change is always best when it isn't forced and occurs organically. Give us more transit options, give us better bike lanes and most people will reduce their driving. I dislike tolls as a method, when raising gas taxes and parking taxes accomplishes the same thing more uniformly.

[Canadian Mind]

The uniformity works region-wide, but where an area or destination has a disproportionate amount of transit access/residents/users, such as downtown, the airport, any of the University campuses (particularly UBC endowment lands), and even malls with good transit access, why shouldn't a special levy be in place?

Granted UBC already has some outrageous parking fees, and that probably does the trick, but what about the various other campus's in the Lower mainland, such as for BCIT, SFU, etc?

Yes the airport you have to pay for parking, but no revenue for simple drop-offs or pick ups. Now that there is a mass-transit line, an alternative to what is basically an SOV drop-off or pick-up, why not toll everyone who drives into the airport for 5-10 bucks?

Malls are car-magnets, as you can tell by the sprawling parking lots. So why not have Translink set up joint revenue collection where every parking spot at the mall costs the user a buck an hour, with half the revenue going to the respective mall, and the other half going to Translink?

As for downtown, I'd be surprised if more than a few people DIDN'T know about the gas tax, and weren't already noticing the extra costs associated with driving. However, if the typical 9-5 worker started receiving a bill in the mail for 100-120 bucks every month because of his commute pattern, it might be that in-your face motivator he/she needs to start finally using transit whenever it is available.

And if nothing else, it is more revenue for Translink and/or the city to put towards future transit projects.

[jlousa]

The problem with the driver receiving a bill for an extra $100 a month in tolls is the administration cost would allow maybe $50 back into the system to be used on transit while an increase in gas and parking taxes results in over $95 to be plowed back into the system. Parking costs already influence people heading to destinations no need to reinvent the wheel.

If the city wants to reduce cars coming downtown, it could sell all its easy park lots for development, that would eliminate thousands of spots in the core plus raise actual money instead of the imaginary money in the viaducts.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The problem with the driver receiving a bill for an extra $100 a month in tolls is the administration cost would allow maybe $50 back into the system to be used on transit while an increase in gas and parking taxes results in over $95 to be plowed back into the system. Parking costs already influence people heading to destinations no need to reinvent the wheel.

So much for getting any more cash out of the universities or downtown parking stalls, but that still doesn't stop you from implimenting a "destination toll" for driving into or through YVR/Downtown. You made no specific comment about parking fees at malls which would go to both Translink/Mall coffers. Curious what your opinion would be on that.

And while I'm sure you made up the 50% administration fee for a downtown destination toll, I'm curious as to why you think it would cost so much? Does the GEB have the same 50% ratio for admin fees? If so, why didn't they just raise the gas tax to cover the cost of the bridge rather than establishing the toll?

Originally Posted by jlousa

If the city wants to reduce cars coming downtown, it could sell all its easy park lots for development, that would eliminate thousands of spots in the core plus raise actual money instead of the imaginary money in the viaducts.

Is that not already happening over time?

[jlousa]

The administration costs on tolls is extremely high, obvious for a person that travels it often the administrative cost as a percentage drops, but for the occasional traveller the cost is well over 50%. If you go to downtown once a month and the toll was $2.50, it would cost more then that to send you the bill and process the payment. That's even if you paid at all, no idea what the GEB is tracking but I'd be surprised if hits 66% after administration.

With the gas tax and parking tax you have easily administrated collection. As for as taxing current free parking like at the malls, they can reinstate the parking spot tax. The framework already exists within the current system.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The administration costs on tolls is extremely high, obvious for a person that travels it often the administrative cost as a percentage drops, but for the occasional traveller the cost is well over 50%. If you go to downtown once a month and the toll was $2.50, it would cost more then that to send you the bill and process the payment. That's even if you paid at all, no idea what the GEB is tracking but I'd be surprised if hits 66% after administration.

With the gas tax and parking tax you have easily administrated collection. As for as taxing current free parking like at the malls, they can reinstate the parking spot tax. The framework already exists within the current system.

It is not something that would automatically be deducted along with the car insurance?

If there is already a parking spot tax, why not re-instate it to help cover Translink's current shortfalls?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by racc

Actually, if you want to be real, it is the people that don't want the viaducts that have same mistrust of people and organizations that rail for the valley seems to have. Just like rail for the valley doesn't trust studies by TransLink, you don't seem to be willing to trust a study by the city. Even worse, you are rejecting the study even though there are no previous studies that you can point to as being biased. At least rail for the valley can point to a history of studies that are flawed.

How about waiting for the results of the study before judging one way or the other. Anything else is being very close minded.

Sorry, but this is rail for the valley. Who was this study spearheaded by? One of the most outspoken cyclist anti-car city councilors we have.

Why did the study target the viaducts directly off the bat?

If the study was more about "options in NEFC revitalization" or "how to maximize transportation on public life" within the area, then I would have more respect for it.

But no, this study began its trump as a "hey, we should tear down the viaducts" comment.

This study never intended to see how the viaducts could be built inot the urban fabric.

Please racc, please just admit this study is biased and really is only about finding reasons to tear down the viaducts.

Why didn't the study extend to other underbuilt areas that dont have viaducts over them?

Or about the undeveloped areas around skytrain stations?

This is why I do not take this study seriously, because it began with a goa in mind, essentially, the people spearheading this study have no intention in keeping the ducts or working with them. For if they did, then why did the study begin with the idea of tearing them down? Why did it not begin with the idea of traffic calming along the surface streets, or how we can incorporate the ducts into the urban fabric?

Also, our Metro population is projected to continue to grow quickly, when Vancouver hits 3.5 million or so (forecast within 20 years or so) even if the % of commuters using SOV to get downtown drops sharply, the sheer number of SOV will likely remain the same or rise, unless downtown's plan is to become even less important to the region.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

As for the HOV, that's why I said registered. The idea is that if you carpool to work, you and your associates can register yourselves under an HOV do-not-charge list. Basically, if 2, 3, or more people are registered as commuting to downtown under one license plate, then that plate isn't charged every time it is seen crossing into downtown.

To prevent fraudulent use of the system, all people involved would have to register in person, with all driving information surrendered so as to produce a database of who is with who.

I feel the same thing should have been done with the GEB, but alas.

Of course what if a group of workers registers a car as a car pool. To not have to pay for the Toll. Now what if the worker who owns the car. Decides to drive into downtown alone on the weekend or a weekday. They should be charged. But they won't be because the system will think it is a HOV.