Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

How so? Because electricity is cheaper? Wouldn't the increased demand for electricity however cause prices to rise? I doubt they'd be as expensive as gas, but it would increase. Which would drop demand for gas, reducing the cost of gas-powered cars, and thus the economics of going to EV.

Electricity is only as good as it is green, otherwise the purpose is defeated. If all EVs in the states were run off coal, they could hardly be called climate friendly. The fact that we're currently a net importer of energy doesn't bode well for EVs in BC either. First, the province needs enough green energy to support a wide replacement of gas-powered cars with EVs.

Plus the revenues of the gas tax would have to be replaced somehow, probably with tolls or insurance rates.

My point is I don't think driving costs would drop "like a rock", though it may initially be cheaper with an EV.

Thermodynamically even the worst EV makes a gas engine look inefficient. The Chevy Volt for instance has a 16 kW*h battery, of which 8.8 kW*h is used in a cycle in order to extend the lifetime of the battery. This 8.8 kW*h is enough to get the car 64km. Under current electrical costs this means that a recharge costs $ 0.53, or $0.008 cents per km.

Even if we tripled electrical costs, this car would still cost less than my 250 Ninja to operate on a per km basis and my Ninja Averages about 3.2 L/100km. This is also with first gen equipment, we can expect improvements. To highlight how a cheap vehicle generally encourages use, I use my motorcycle a lot because it's so cheap. Combined gas and insurance on my bike is cheaper than a tank and a half of gas that I would otherwise use in my car on a given month, and is about $10-15 dollars cheaper than a monthly 1-zone bust pass. I barely consider my car or the bus an option unless its raining particularly hard.

The big cost of ownership is going to be initial purchase and possibly battery replacement. The cost of maintenance (given a couple generations of hardware development) should also drop like a rock as there are so few moving parts compared to an ICE.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by cabotp

You can't assume that if there had been an expressway built along the railway tracks. That there would have been an RRT system as well. Or at least that is the gist I'm getting.

You are correct that vehicle traffic is never going away 100%. But for every lane you introduce. You will alway get more vehicle traffic. The lanes will always fill up, because there is always someone who isn't driving but will start to drive when it becomes more convenient to them.

Such is the "conventional wisdom," anyway. I won't argue with you, but I think there will always be cars, a need for roadspace for those cars, and that it will increase anyway, given that Vancouver is a fast-growing city.

We're lucky enough to be a young city that can make changes, and part of the core changes is a comprehensive rail transit system. But making it inconvenient for cars will not make them go away.

It will result in (more of) cars cutting > at high speed > through residential neighbourhoods, and traffic bottlenecks backed all the way up Hastings, among other streets.

That's just my opinion, though. Conventional wisdom rules.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Such is the "conventional wisdom," anyway. I won't argue with you, but I think there will always be cars, a need for roadspace for those cars, and that it will increase anyway, given that Vancouver is a fast-growing city.

We're lucky enough to be a young city that can make changes, and part of the core changes is a comprehensive rail transit system. But making it inconvenient for cars will not make them go away.

It will result in (more of) cars cutting > at high speed > through residential neighbourhoods, and traffic bottlenecks backed all the way up Hastings, among other streets.

That's just my opinion, though. Conventional wisdom rules.

I do agree that there will always be cars. I just feel we need to look at ways of trying to getting people not to drive into the city every time.

While in some ways I do support the idea of designated expressways. I wouldn't want to just build them and have no tolls. As that would only just open up more road space and we'd eventually be back to where we are now. With the expressway congested as well as the surface streets like 1st and Hastings.

Some people have suggest that we could toll the expressway. Is that really the proper thing to do. We want to get people off of 1st and Hastings so by putting a toll on the expressway people may decide to not use it and just stick with 1st and Hastings. It might be better to actually have the tolls on 1st and Hastings and make the expressway freeway. Anyone who lives in the immediate vicinity of 1st and Hastings of course would get a free pass on the toll.

But even before building an expressway. I'd like to see tolls put up. Wherever that may be. See how it affects the traffic.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by cabotp

I do agree that there will always be cars. I just feel we need to look at ways of trying to getting people not to drive into the city every time.

While in some ways I do support the idea of designated expressways. I wouldn't want to just build them and have no tolls. As that would only just open up more road space and we'd eventually be back to where we are now. With the expressway congested as well as the surface streets like 1st and Hastings.

Some people have suggest that we could toll the expressway. Is that really the proper thing to do. We want to get people off of 1st and Hastings so by putting a toll on the expressway people may decide to not use it and just stick with 1st and Hastings. It might be better to actually have the tolls on 1st and Hastings and make the expressway freeway. Anyone who lives in the immediate vicinity of 1st and Hastings of course would get a free pass on the toll.

But even before building an expressway. I'd like to see tolls put up. Wherever that may be. See how it affects the traffic.

Sounds a bit complicated, but I see your point. It might work.

[Waders]

CoV had voted to only spend $300,000(instead of $700,000) to do the study.
There must have a lot of criticism about the study or money issue.

[racc]

Originally Posted by Waders

CoV had voted to only spend $300,000(instead of $700,000) to do the study.
There must have a lot of criticism about the study or money issue.

Looks like they decided to do it in two phases. If some of the options are ruled out, why spend money developing them further.

[whatnext]

From the most recent issue of BIV (subscriber only):

Removing the Main Street overpasses might be the most practical answer to the question of what to do with Vancouver's viaducts...

...He [Lon Laclair CoV manager of strategic transportation planning] said there's an urban design concern about the negative aspects of the viaducts and their presence in East Vancouver neighbourhoods like Chinatown or Strathcona..."

This is sounding more and more like a sop to Councillor Meggs' erstwhile Strathcona neighbours? This will only increase emissions as all vehicles using the viaducts will ahve to stop at an at-grade intersection with Main.

[SpikePhanta]

Wait, if the City wants to remove the viaducts or make changes to it, won't they need approval from the rest of metro vancouver?

[SpongeG]

no it's a city road

[deasine]

Originally Posted by SpikePhanta

Wait, if the City wants to remove the viaducts or make changes to it, won't they need approval from the rest of metro vancouver?

Originally Posted by SpongeG

no it's a city road

Requires approval from TransLink.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by deasine

Requires approval from TransLink.

In which their response will be: "You pay for it."

[whatnext]

I'm still at a loss to figure out how much land will be freed up by terminating the viaducts at Main...the NE and SE corners, and that's it?

[trofirhen]

The Viaducts act as a fifth bridge onto the downtown peninsula. And not all the vehicles using them are local people too lazy to commute on public transport. There are delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles, and out-of-province vehicles accessing the city centre.

Otherwise stated, the viaducts (and they're not humungous eight-lane thingies, at that) are a vital link eastward from downtown - although I admit something should be done from where they rejoin the streets east, so as to impact less on Strathcona and immediate neighbourhoods.

The Bottom Line: just how much usable free land do they cover up now? Is it really all that necessary and all that profitable to tear them down, creating a slower, more awkward traffic scene (and the vehicles will STILL be there ....) with red light, stop, go, stop, go, left turn, right turn, traffic-backed-up situation? .....

Taking out the viaducts, IMO, is a "granola-muncher" idea. Excuse me. PLEASE ... keep the viaducts.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

The Viaducts act as a fifth bridge onto the downtown peninsula. And not all the vehicles using them are local people too lazy to commute on public transport. There are delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles, and out-of-province vehicles accessing the city centre.

They are critical if and when the "New St. Pauls" eventually gets built. Which, I'm sure it will once the province is in a healthier financial situation, and needs to buy some votes with healthcare spending, regardless of party.

[red-paladin]

I don't think it was ever about freeing up real-estate. We've gone over that in the forum and it makes no sense.

My main beef with it is that Rogers Arena and Spectrum are already built to connect to the viaduct, and no doubt those future arena and Concord Pacific towers will be too. This makes it completely different than, say, the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle, which really is a freeway over the city.

Now I agree that viaducts are ugly, and I probably wouldn't have supported building it in the first place, but I do realise that it was built because there were train tracks there, and it was to link with a freeway going east. However, even though the train tracks and freeway don't exist, and this point there is traffic using the viaducts and traffic using Expo / Pacific underneath. The only way it could be done properly is to remove the viaduct and add those lanes to the roads below, which would never happen.

This is why even though I agree the viaducts are kind of ugly, I think that the city has grown up around them, and we need them. I also think the only reason the Mayor wants to take them down is he is anti-car. I'm pro-transit as much as anyone, but removing lanes into the city, where it is already congested, is just stupid.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

This is why even though I agree the viaducts are kind of ugly, I think that the city has grown up around them, and we need them. I also think the only reason the Mayor wants to take them down is he is anti-car. I'm pro-transit as much as anyone, but removing lanes into the city, where it is already congested, is just stupid.

With you 100%!

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

With you 100%!

Add another 100%

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Add another 100%

Make that 300% if you include me.

[whatnext]

Sorry, I should have quoted more of the article, but I'm a bit sensitive to copywright issues. It said "the option to shorten the viaducts so that they terminate at Main Street could offset the costs of area construction and/or a new street network and reconnect Chinatown and the DTES with False Creek". You'll have to buy a BIV subscription to read the rest!

Surely the costs of such an amputation would be quite high? BTW, the viaducts apparently carry "only" 50,000 vehicles a day vs 60-65,000 apiece for the three bridges.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by whatnext

From the most recent issue of BIV (subscriber only):

Removing the Main Street overpasses might be the most practical answer to the question of what to do with Vancouver's viaducts...

...He [Lon Laclair CoV manager of strategic transportation planning] said there's an urban design concern about the negative aspects of the viaducts and their presence in East Vancouver neighbourhoods like Chinatown or Strathcona..."

Uh oh. That has a bad smell to it. I suspect that will be what council will ultimately decide. The Main Street overpasses are not part of the GVTA major road network.

However, they are very sleek clear-spans with clean lines and I find them to be the most "attractive" part of the entire viaduct system. Furthermore, they would provide a direct link to a future St. Paul's Hospital.

More importantly, the Main Street overpasses would directly link to the future Malkin Connector taking traffic away from Strathcona. The "False Creek Flats Rail Corridor Strategy" dated October 30, 2008 has identified the Malkin Connector as "The highest potential for community benefit."

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/currentplanning/fcflats/pdf/oct08railcorridorstrategy.pdf

Even Strathcona residents support the Malkin Connector:

According to Strathcona resident Rick Archambault, one major piece of the puzzle is missing. Another road must be designated to bear downtown-bound cars being fed onto the Dunsmuir Viaduct, as well as the outbound traffic coming off the Georgia Viaduct.

For years, Archambault recalled in a phone interview, residents heard city engineers talk about a “Malkin connector”. The concept involves building a link over the railroad tracks from Clark Drive and East 1st Avenue to Malkin Avenue south of Prior Street, which would carry the traffic going downtown.

http://www.straight.com/article-270916/vancouver/viaducts-death-could-revitalize-strathcona

According to Barbara Lee, a resident of Prior Street and an active community member, the viaducts send eastbound vehicles into the residential neighbourhood of Strathcona, creating traffic jams.

“I would prefer not tearing it down but rerouting it over the railway lines,” Lee told the Straight by phone. She explained that she’d like to see traffic directed onto Malkin Avenue and then over to Terminal Avenue.

http://www.straight.com/article-265325/city-puts-georgia-viaducts-future-play

And now the CoV's so-called manager of strategic transportation planning says that the Main Street overpasses are an "urban design concern"? Who hires these boneheads, with their piecemeal approach, anyway?!