Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

...Don't say that.
That encourages the mayor to close them for two weeks as a trial. Then when everyone works from home, as they expect traffic to be hell for two weeks, like during the Olympics, he'll say "See! the traffic disappeared!", and tear them down. Then the real traffic nightmare will begin!

Except, maybe, the same complaints from everyone not on a main shopping strip about having no business at all may have some more validity

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

...Don't say that.
That encourages the mayor to close them for two weeks as a trial. Then when everyone works from home, as they expect traffic to be hell for two weeks, like during the Olympics, he'll say "See! the traffic disappeared!", and tear them down. Then the real traffic nightmare will begin!

What happened in Vancouver regarding civic leadership since I've been gone? Sounds as if you folks elected a real loo-loo ......

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by lightrail

.Manhattan's West Side Highway, an elevated freeway along the Hudson River, collapsed and was closed in 1973. When it was closed, 53 percent of the traffic that had used this freeway simply disappeared.

http://www.planetizen.com/node/23300

The Westside Highway still exists. Its just an EIGHT lane suface road:
http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http:...i=mtFBTJqRJ5GcsQO6-9XcDA&ved=0CEgQ9QEwCg

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The Westside Highway still exists. Its just an EIGHT lane suface road:
http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http:...i=mtFBTJqRJ5GcsQO6-9XcDA&ved=0CEgQ9QEwCg

Everything on that list of his was replaced by something bigger and better, along with hundreds of millions (or billions) in rapid transit. Which is why the list 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵.

And is SLIGHTLY misleading. They did not cut off access to a certain part of the city and say, "Well, good luck..."

Of course, places like Manhattan also have multiple bridges and tunnels enabling people to get in. They aren't trying to become an island cut-off from the outside World.

[racc]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Everything on that list of his was replaced by something bigger and better, along with hundreds of millions (or billions) in rapid transit. Which is why the list 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵.

And is SLIGHTLY misleading. They did not cut off access to a certain part of the city and say, "Well, good luck..."

Of course, places like Manhattan also have multiple bridges and tunnels enabling people to get in. They aren't trying to become an island cut-off from the outside World.

You are conveniently forgetting the Expo Line, with a capacity of 50,000 people per hour runs parallel to the Viaducts while the viaducts only carry 50,000 vehicles per day. There is obviously plenty of transit capacity. There access points to downtown one block to the north and two blocks to the south. Downtown would hardly become an island. You might actually want to look at a map before posting next time.

[Yume-sama]

I clearly didn't say it WOULD, I said other cities "aren't trying to". Other cities live in a fancy place called "reality" and accommodate both for the health of their economy. And really, the viaducts are quite small in comparison to anything you may see in any other city, but they are an integral part of Vancouver's infrastructure. To re-direct those 50,000 cars to local roads underneath would be dangerous... even for cyclists, which is all you really care about

50,000 cars is quite massive considering the size of Vancouver.

The New York subway system is one of the best in the World, but yet, they have multiple massive bridges and tunnels, and a huge "ring road". I wonder why.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by racc

You are conveniently forgetting the Expo Line, with a capacity of 50,000 people per hour runs parallel to the Viaducts while the viaducts only carry 50,000 vehicles per day. There is obviously plenty of transit capacity. There access points to downtown one block to the north and two blocks to the south. Downtown would hardly become an island. You might actually want to look at a map before posting next time.

Your bias is so blatantly obvious when you state the viaducts handle "only" 50,000 vehicles per day. How many bikes does the new Dunsmuir Street route handle per day?

So you're advocating for the viaducts' vehicle traffic to be re-routed onto surface streets. And given that you were plumping on the Hastings Street thread to reduce vehicle speeds, you are therefore in favour of the increased emissions that would go with that combination of factors. Doesn't sound very green to me. Sometimes it helps to look once idealogical biases in favour of common sense.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by racc

You are conveniently forgetting the Expo Line, with a capacity of 50,000 people per hour runs parallel to the Viaducts while the viaducts only carry 50,000 vehicles per day. There is obviously plenty of transit capacity. There access points to downtown one block to the north and two blocks to the south. Downtown would hardly become an island. You might actually want to look at a map before posting next time.

I'm looking at a map right now. I've zoomed out to see the 'big picture' of metro Vancouver from Downtown to Surrey.

Other than a few blocks between Columbia St and Stadium Station where SkyTrain and the Viaducts run beside each other, there is no correlation between the people using Skytrain (coming from Burnaby - Metrotown area, New Westminster and Surrey) and the vehicles using the viaducts (coming from the Burnaby - SFU area and the Vancouver - Hastings area)

It's an unfortunate reality that simply removing the viaducts won't change drivers into transit users, but makes them frustrated drivers instead. This is especially true when there isn't a viable SkyTrain option for people travelling east of downtown along the Hastings corridor.

Even if there was a SkyTrain line on the Hastings corridor that makes the commute easier, you would still have the commercial traffic that needs to use their vehicles to service the downtown area. Making it harder for them to get downtown only makes their costs go up - costs that are ultimately passed on to YOU the consumer.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by racc

You are conveniently forgetting the Expo Line, with a capacity of 50,000 people per hour runs parallel to the Viaducts while the viaducts only carry 50,000 vehicles per day. There is obviously plenty of transit capacity. There access points to downtown one block to the north and two blocks to the south. Downtown would hardly become an island. You might actually want to look at a map before posting next time.

Uh huh.

Lions Gate Bridge - 65,000 vehicles per day
Burrard Street Bridge - 60,000 vehicles per day
Port Mann Bridge - 130,000 vehicles per day


Alrighty then, lets put all of this traffic into the city streets below with pedestrians and cyclists!

And it's 25,000 passengers per hour per direction, and it won't be for awhile before we reach that. You'd never see both directions at their max. capacities, rush hour only goes one way.

And despite your beliefs, while we should positively encourage people to take transit by making transit more attractive not everyone can ditch their cars for transit. Furthermore we should positively encourage people to take transit (by improving service) instead of trying to force people to take other options, which in the end simply won't work.

Given that the region is growing and that we most likely won't be adding any major road capacity within the City of Vancouver, it would be quite wise to maintain what road capacity we have today for future growth. Deny it all you want but roads are a necessity.

Originally Posted by whatnext

Your bias is so blatantly obvious when you state the viaducts handle "only" 50,000 vehicles per day. How many bikes does the new Dunsmuir Street route handle per day?

So you're advocating for the viaducts' vehicle traffic to be re-routed onto surface streets. And given that you were plumping on the Hastings Street thread to reduce vehicle speeds, you are therefore in favour of the increased emissions that would go with that combination of factors. Doesn't sound very green to me. Sometimes it helps to look once idealogical biases in favour of common sense.

The far right bases their opinions on ignorance (Obama's gonna kill my grandma with socialized health care!) while the far left bases their opinions on arrogance (cue the Gregor Robertson vid)...

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

I clearly didn't say it WOULD, I said other cities "aren't trying to". Other cities live in a fancy place called "reality" and accommodate both for the health of their economy. And really, the viaducts are quite small in comparison to anything you may see in any other city, but they are an integral part of Vancouver's infrastructure. To re-direct those 50,000 cars to local roads underneath would be dangerous... even for cyclists, which is all you really care about

50,000 cars is quite massive considering the size of Vancouver.

The New York subway system is one of the best in the World, but yet, they have multiple massive bridges and tunnels, and a huge "ring road". I wonder why.

Precise and all-compassing!! I'm behind you 100% on this post. It synthesizes the main issues perfectly.

[lightrail]

I love this debate. It just shows that we're so tied up in the car culture that we can't see the forest for the trees.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by lightrail

I love this debate. It just shows that we're so tied up in the car culture that we can't see the forest for the trees.

Likewise this also shows that the bicycle-lobby is so used to having this city council on it's side that it can no longer make a convincing argument.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by lightrail

I love this debate. It just shows that we're so tied up in the car culture that we can't see the forest for the trees.

I think what we are tied up in is mobility.

Its what makes the world go round, if you cant get somewhere then you cant do something and if you cant do something then you are useless, and lots of useless people make for a useless city and useless city is most definitely not green.

Obviously another way to look at it would be, if its harder to get somewhere then its harder to do something and if its harder to do something then you are less useful, and lots of less useful people make for a less useful city and a less useful city is most definitely not green.

mobility!
freedom!
progress!

this city council imo is for LESS mobility, LESS freedom and LESS progress.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I think what we are tied up in is mobility.

Its what makes the world go round, if you cant get somewhere then you cant do something and if you cant do something then you are useless, and lots of useless people make for a useless city and useless city is most definitely not green.

Obviously another way to look at it would be, if its harder to get somewhere then its harder to do something and if its harder to do something then you are less useful, and lots of less useful people make for a less useful city and a less useful city is most definitely not green.

mobility!
freedom!
progress!

this city council imo is for LESS mobility, LESS freedom and LESS progress.

Speaking from a distance, and being absent for civic elections and campaigns, I cannot help the feeling that this city council is, by and large, a group of granola munchers, at least where motor vehicle traffic is concerned. Who voted them in, anyway? Everything that I glean from them is so hippy-dippy. I thought that people were back to biting the reality bullet, as difficult as that may be. And part of that reality is accepting that, like it hate it, motor vehicles (cars, ambulances, delivery vehicles, police vehicles ....) are going to be with us for several generations, and that we have to accept and integrate them into our daily lives. This applies to ALL cities in the developed world, from Vancouver, to Teheran, to Cape Town to Tokyo. Many cities do a very good job at integrating motor vehicles into city life (i.e.: Stockholm, Sweden). We can too, if certain people will get off their fantasyville high horse.

[SFUVancouver]

Let's dial down the rhetoric, shall we?

Cars do not have a monopoly on "mobility", "freedom" or "progress" and to assert otherwise, let alone in big bold font, is ignorant.

Our viaducts are in fine structural shape and they are not a physical danger to anyone, unlike the former Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco or the Alaska Freeway in Seattle. The viaducts do not connect up directly to Hwy 1 and, thus, do not function like an extension of the regional freeway system. They are, without a doubt, municipal arterial roads that are elevated due to geography. This is really no different than our main bridges or the many spans over the Granview Cut. Spending time and money demolishing them is not a priority for me.

With that said, the viaducts are city streets and, thus, not reserved exclusively for cars and trucks. The narrow sidewalks are insufficient and until the protected bike lane was added the Dunsmuir viaduct was a risky place to ride. I think that the trial bike lane on the Dunsmuir viaduct should be made permanent and aesthetically improved to match the Dunsmuir street protected bike lanes. I would also like to see stairs added at a couple of points along the viaduct, at Columbia and by Rogers Area, to connect the ground plane to the viaduct. Pedestrian-level street lighting should also be added at some point instead of relying on the giant overhead high-pressure sodium lights and regular low-pressure sodium city street lights. Lastly I would like to see a green buffer of trees and grasses added and the sidewalk widened. That could could come at the cost of part of the bike lane. The Georgia viaduct should receive the same treatment as Dunsmuir and I would like to see a protected bike lane added to Georgia Street and the viaduct at some point in the next five years or so. All these upgrades would come at mid-life for the viaducts and as part of the upgrade I would really like to see some architectural lighting added beneath. We are awful at lighting up our bridges in Vancouver and I cannot figure our why.

As much as I welcome more development space in the downtown peninsula, I think that the space beneath the viaducts can serve as invaluable recreational and cultural space, or even infrastructure space for the streetcar. The pollution wafting down from the viaducts is not healthy, especially the fine particulates from diesel engines, but pollution controls for vehicles, especially big trucks and buses can address much of that.

The bottom line is at this point our mobility is not tied exclusively to cars. We are past that. Over the last few decades responsible governments have stopped referring to the ITE handbook as the guide to building cities. And guess what? Our cities turned out better. We did the automobile-only planning for fifty years and it was not as successful as we hoped. Now we are learning from the past and weighing the lessons when considering new problems.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

The bottom line is at this point our mobility is not tied exclusively to cars. We are past that. Over the last few decades responsible governments have stopped referring to the ITE handbook as the guide to building cities. And guess what? Our cities turned out better. We did the automobile-only planning for fifty years and it was not as successful as we hoped. Now we are learning from the past and weighing the lessons when considering new problems.

Sadly during those 50 years Vancouver did a whole lot of nothing when it comes down to car-centric planning. The majority of streets we've got in CoV are the improved leftovers of railway era planning.

Say that the car centric era started in 1930, and ended in 1980s when skytrain came into being. What big infrastructure did we build? A lot of things happened around the perimeter of the city, but almost nothing happened in the middle of it.

In the downtown area, the Burrard Street Bridge and Lions Gate Bridge were added. The Granville St. and Cambie St. Bridges already existed as low level bridges. The Georgia Viaduct was built in 1915, albeit with a pattern that fit the grid of the area. These are all evolutionary improvements to the grid. There's been almost nothing revolutionary in this city that was built only to handle cars.

[madmigs]

I'm not saying this is what should be done, but just looking at a map, without knowing utilization of the other streets in the area, a few ideas came to mind. I do think we need to get rid of the viaducts sooner or later as they are ugly, etc, but I also think that the capacity would need to be replaced along similar routes to the viaducts. Getting rid of the viaducts without some sort of capacity replacement doesn't make a lot of sense especially seeing as those are arterial roads in/out of downtown as well as through downtown.

For the W. Georgia viaduct leading out of downtown, instead of the viaduct could we instead just have W. Georgia go down the hill and merge into Pacific Blvd. Both are one way streets going out of downtown, leading into other arterial roads. The only issues I see with this are we may need to add another lane to Pacific, and complicates traffic patterns for any traffic that heads North off of the viaduct. And we would probably still need an elevated portion overtop of Expo Blvd.

The Dunsmuir viaduct would be a bit more complicated. Traffic headed from Main Street, could take Union Street, and with the viaduct gone, Union could be widened. Union merges then into Expo Blvd, and once the viaduct is gone, add the ability to exit to the right from Expo Blvd onto Dunsmuir(now a surface road) and go up the hill. And for traffic coming from the south, Quebec already merges(or rather becomes) Expo Blvd.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by lightrail

I love this debate. It just shows that we're so tied up in the car culture that we can't see the forest for the trees.

Even the most transit, pedestrian, and cycling friendly cities have a better road network than ours and it's layered, includes highways. What's your point?


You're arguing from an idealist point of view, while we're arguing from a realist POV.....ideas matter, but you also have to acknowledge what actually works today and has proven to work in the past.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Everything on that list of his was replaced by something bigger and better, along with hundreds of millions (or billions) in rapid transit. Which is why the list 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵.

What "bigger and better" thing replaced the Embarcadero Freeway? Are you talking about the historic trolleys that run along the route? I don't think those cost "billions" of dollars nor qualify as "rapid" transit.

[geoff's two cents]

Great post, SFU.