Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Hed Kandi]

..

[WBC]

CoV seems to have a few hundred grand to spend on "consultants" to run fantasy studies of project that CoV would like somebody else to pay for (i.e. Tranlink or region). For example, see the last 15 years of studies and fantasies over the False Creek street car. After all isn't capitalism all about getting rich or getting prosperity with somebody else's money?

All 6 options are lacking imagination and creativity IMHO. And regardless this will never be funded or much less implemented, as knowing the Vancouver politics the present council will be wiped out in next election and replaced by most likely west side snobs (as it's their turn to take the reigns from west side hippies).

You want creativity and relevance? How about this - how about running street car from downtown, via viaducts down main street? How about then upping the density on Main street as opposed to cramming a few more condo towers into False Creek East? How about then using the False Creek East lands around viaducts to open up a few restaurants on the actual shoreline (gasp!) and maybe a permanent farmers market under the viaducts?

[Zassk]

^ I agree, the viaducts are expensive infrastructure with inherent value, they don't have to be used for roads necessarily, there are many other potential uses that will all vanish if they are torn down.

[Stingray2004]

Had a chance to review the usual nutty comments on the CBC story on this issue and cherry-picked my faves. BTW, the sense therein seems to be that the 'ducts should remain:

Vancouver has the best urban planning in North America. Getting rid of the Viaducts is a good idea. The only thing the city is lacking is a good connection between the #1 highway and the downtown.

Hmmmmmm... the viaducts would be the western end of that connection.

Vancouver was piss poor designed from day one. No easy access from the #1 was the biggest mistake. Total morons developed this city and total morons continue to run it. Instead of making things easier for everyone, they make it easy for a special interest group.

Yeah, it's still gonna be that way.

I live in Strathcona, and would welcome the retirement of the viaducts. What I have heard and makes sense to me, is to route East-West traffic via Malkin Avenue to Clark, rather than via Prior Street, the way it is now.

Ya still need them 'ducts to connect to a future Malkin Connector.

And Letterman's number #1 reason not to tear down the 'ducts:

Well if they do tear it down, I hope they don't hire Global Demolition to do the job. If so, they'd better evacuate the whole downtown just to be safe.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbi...wntown-viaduct-study.html#socialcomments

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Waders

The report mentioned this:

Does this mean the City is spending next year's money?

of course!

And it's not even their money.
Its yours - and it's being spent before you've received next years tax assessment notice.

Today's lesson of How Government Works.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Zassk

^ I agree, the viaducts are expensive infrastructure with inherent value, they don't have to be used for roads necessarily, there are many other potential uses that will all vanish if they are torn down.

and knocking over the Dunsmuir viaduct sorta quashes the usefulness of the new bike lanes along Dunsmuir, so they'll have to spend more millions taking them out or making other new bike lanes to connect along Beatty and Hastings/Pender.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

of course!

And it's not even their money.
Its yours - and it's being spent before you've received next years tax assessment notice.

Today's lesson of How Government Works.

That's exactly how government works. What's your point?

[IanS]

Heh. Excavate all of downtown?

Think of all the room for more bikes lanes.

Better commission a study.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

and knocking over the Dunsmuir viaduct sorta quashes the usefulness of the new bike lanes along Dunsmuir, so they'll have to spend more millions taking them out or making other new bike lanes to connect along Beatty and Hastings/Pender.

Indeed. I recommend an at grade Dunsmuir Street that follows the natural contours of the terrain. I know my car is up to the challenge. Cyclists, not so much.

[racc]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

and knocking over the Dunsmuir viaduct sorta quashes the usefulness of the new bike lanes along Dunsmuir, so they'll have to spend more millions taking them out or making other new bike lanes to connect along Beatty and Hastings/Pender.

The planned Georgia Pedestrian/Bicycle connection would link up ok with the Dunsmuir Street Bike Lanes. As well, there is no reason why a similar connection could not be made by Dunsmuir if the Viaduct is torn down.

How about next time using your creativity to find solutions to make it work rather than coming up with excuses why it won't work.

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by racc

How about next time using your creativity to find solutions to make it work rather than coming up with excuses why it won't work.

Funny, the exact same thing could be said about the viaducts' opponents. Every supposed benefit- aesthetics, more useable land, less drivers -could be achieved with a bit of creativity and without pissing off the rest of the region. Simply knocking them down is just the easy way out.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by racc

This is why they are doing the study so we will all know the answers to these questions and others. Otherwise, we can all just continue to guess about what the impacts, costs and benefits are.

For example, maybe by realigning the SkyTrain guideway, the city can get more money for the land which could pay for the realignment. Who knows until the study is done.

Realigning the Skytrain guideway would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Not only do you need to build a new guideway, but you have to find someway of hooking it up to the existing stations so that the most heavily used segment of the Skytrain Network isn't offline for a couple of weeks.

Land in Vancouver is expensive, but there is no way that the value of the land under the Guideway is worth that much money. Most of the money made off developing land that the city gets has to go to providing new public facilities for the increase in the population. Otherwise the city would one fucking rich company instead of a near bankrupt bureaucracy.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

Funny, the exact same thing could be said about the viaducts' opponents. Every supposed benefit- aesthetics, more useable land, less drivers -could be achieved with a bit of creativity and without pissing off the rest of the region. Simply knocking them down is just the easy way out.

I would surmise that most of the region doesn't give a rodents posterior about the viaducts. Just some concrete pilings and spans.

The study will show what impact removing the viaducts will have and whether it makes sense to do so.

[cabotp]

As for the Viaducts. While I don't drive and I only cycle and take transit everywhere. I do believe that we shouldn't tear them down at this point in time. In 10 years or 20 years who knows.

As for realigning the skytrain guide way. Even if we had all the money in the world to do so. Is it really necessary. Sure the trains are force to move slower in that one section because of some complaining residents. Thing is it has been like that for years now. So one can assume that most people have just gotten used to the idea.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

That's why the options must be studied.

Sorry but what? There's a few different phases of evaluation that things should undergo before implementation. The first couple stages that happen before a full feasibility study or even a pre-feas study are all about the pitch of weather or not an idea makes any sense.

What you're saying is because this idea will probably be deemed financially suicidal for the CoV; with something along the lines of a few scribbles on a napkin, we should commit about 1% of the CoV budget. Doesn't this seem kind of backwards to you? This isn't some kind of logic trick problem...

[trofirhen]

VANCOUVER, as most of you know, is named after the distinguished English naval captain George Vancouver. The name itself is Dutch in Origin, and reflects Captain Vancouver's Norfolk roots.

Given the attitude toward cars, roads, and anything resembling progressive, necessary vehicle movement in the city, and the overweening desire of most people to destroy it, I think the city should be renamed.

"Granolaville"

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

VANCOUVER, as most of you know, is named after the distinguished English naval captain George Vancouver. The name itself is Dutch in Origin, and reflects Captain Vancouver's Norfolk roots.

Given the attitude toward cars, roads, and anything resembling progressive, necessary vehicle movement in the city, and the overweening desire of most people to destroy it, I think the city should be renamed.

"Granolaville"

Nobody said you couldn't drive. But we are not only going to cater to the drivers. There is more to a cities transportation system than just someone driving in from the suburbs.

[jlousa]

Some of the more important details in the report going to council

The viaducts are part of Vancouver’s truck route network and the majority of the truck traffic is small trucks. The viaducts, along with Expo and Pacific Boulevards are the only route into the Downtown across the downtown neck between 7am and 6pm for trucks over 15m in length.

The Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts currently carry about 1/3 of the traffic entering the downtown across the “Downtown Neck”.

Provincial legislation also requires TransLink approval for any changes that would prohibit truck movement (this applies to all municipal roads, not just the MRN).

recent inspections indicate that the Viaducts are in good condition and a remaining lifespan of 50 years could be expected.

In the report back to Council on the Burrard Bridge bike lane trial, a summary of the data collection during the trial was provided. This summary reported that neither the Burrard nor the Granville Bridge had appreciable changes in the number of daily vehicle crossings. The most noticeable change to vehicle travel times was for trips approaching the north end of the
bridge from the west along Thurlow or Pacific which on average experienced an increase in travel time of 1½ minutes in the morning peak period and 3 minutes in the afternoon.

Interesting how reducing capacity did not reduce traffic, it did increase congestion though.

Comparing data recorded before the start of Canada Line construction, to data compiled during Canada Line construction shows that traffic volumes did not drop but were redistributed amongst the adjacent arterial streets, primarily Granville Street, Quebec Street and Main Street.

Seems like precedent shows that any reduction here will lead to increased traffic on local roads, sounds more liveable to me then having the traffic on the viaducts as now.

Staff anticipate that the study will be complete in May 2011. however, in recognition of the complexity of the technical work and the breadth of the scope, the budget includes staff resources for a period of up to one year to ensure that the study is completed.

The results of the technical analysis, public consultation and a recommended approach will be brought forward for Council consideration in March 2011.

This one is really odd, the study isn't done until May, what is the city considering in March then?

Should make for an interesting election in November.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

VANCOUVER, as most of you know, is named after the distinguished English naval captain George Vancouver. The name itself is Dutch in Origin, and reflects Captain Vancouver's Norfolk roots.

Given the attitude toward cars, roads, and anything resembling progressive, necessary vehicle movement in the city, and the overweening desire of most people to destroy it, I think the city should be renamed.

"Granolaville"

I know, isn't it terrible? We should bring a complaint to the Human Rights Council for the discrimination the drivers in this city suffer.

Free Henry Ford! End Carpartheid now!

Don't you think that the reaction to this report that hasn't even been completed is somewhat excessive? It seems that the benchmark on these forums for when a proposal is deemed unreasonable is when it has any, no matter how slight, impact on the convenience of just one road user: drivers.

On another thread, the lives of "crackheads" was deemed less important than the 2 minutes that drivers would lose if a speed reduction was implemented. And I was a commie for commenting on that.

Also if it is true that most people in the city want to "destroy" "progressive" vehicle movement in the city, then that's democracy for you. Better start getting a taste for granola.

Not everybody in this city appears to share your urban esthetics and your trust in progress above all.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Nobody said you couldn't drive. But we are not only going to cater to the drivers. There is more to a cities transportation system than just someone driving in from the suburbs.

Well we all certainly know there is more to the city's transportation system than cyclists, with their sub-10% share of commuting.

Lets all take heart that "Mr. Union" Meggs was the lowest polling councillor in the last election. Shouldn't be hard to knock him off the roster next time.