Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[jlousa]

Jumped to new page, details being discussed posted on previous page.

One of the major rules of investing, you do not plan the future by watching the past. It would be like driving a car looking thru the rear-view mirror.

Vehicle traffic into downtown has certainly come down slightly over the last decade, but that is no guarantee it will continue to happen. It is a very dangerous assumption, and very short-sighted to imply in an rfp that the successful proponent to consider that to be true.

The other assumptions aren't any better. They can very well come true, but if the report is supposed to be unbiased then why include any assumptions? Leave everything undetermined for the winning proponent to decide. I would be arguing the same case if they had listed the fact that vehicle registration has been increasing every year and is expected to continue to do so for the next 30yrs. Again a relative same assumption, but it would be equally wrong to expect the winning proponent to use in conducting the report as it would influence the outcome in a certain direction.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Vehicle traffic into downtown has certainly come down slightly over the last decade, but that is no guarantee it will continue to happen. It is a very dangerous assumption, and very short-sighted to imply in an rfp that the successful proponent to consider that to be true.

The other assumptions aren't any better. They can very well come true, but if the report is supposed to be unbiased then why include any assumptions?

Jlousa.... councillor Geoff Meggs, who is in fact the de facto mayor of Vancouver, has previously boasted to unnamed parties, that the viaducts will be coming down. It's all political. And that's unfortunate. And VV will probably be done like dinner with that decision in the 2011 election.

Even neighbouring centre-left Burnaby council has the fortitude to realize that the Stromont-McBride Connector is a major component in its transportation plan to remove traffic from Canada Way and other residential streets. The CoV seems to be downtown centric and doesn't realize that sfd's consume 75% of the rest of the CoV. Forget about the rest of the region.

As for 'transit' into downtown Vancouver, I have not taken same since I was 15 and have asked around to friends, relatives, and co-workers and have found that one friend of a friend of a friend uses WCE from Mission to downtown for work. Another cousin of mine has now abandoned the White Rock express bus to Granville because of the Canada Line diversion. That's it. Nobody else that I know uses 'transit' for various reasons.

Frankly, with current city council, I don't care anymore if they tear down the viaducts. I will just be rat-running city streets like everyone else. Van City council, representing 26% of Metro Vancouver's population, doesn't seem to care any more either.

30 years down the road, with another million+ residents in Metro Vancouver, the viaducts will probably need to be rebuilt, with a tunnel east of Clark connecting to Hwy 1, in any event.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Vehicle traffic into downtown has certainly come down slightly over the last decade, but that is no guarantee it will continue to happen. It is a very dangerous assumption, and very short-sighted to imply in an rfp that the successful proponent to consider that to be true.

The job requested is to "develop forecasts of volumes by transportation mode and link for future forecast years of 2020, 2030 and 2040". The context is the "increasing trips but reduced vehicle traffic volumes entering the downtown and a shift to transit". The context isn't required, but it does no harm to include it.

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

The job requested is to "develop forecasts of volumes by transportation mode and link for future forecast years of 2020, 2030 and 2040". The context is the "increasing trips but reduced vehicle traffic volumes entering the downtown and a shift to transit". The context isn't required, but it does no harm to include it.

Is there a link to the report somewhere?

[jlousa]

I don't think there is any secret how Geoff will read the report regardless of what is written in it. What is sad is to see city staff write a report that caters to the council of the day. Staff should always cater to the needs of the populace and leave the politics out of it. Here's a link that shows Geoffs view on the matter.

http://www.geoffmeggs.ca/2010/09/11/as-v...ities-begin-their-own-freeway-teardowns/


Madmigs
There is no report, that is what the rfp is for.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I don't think there is any secret how Geoff will read the report regardless of what is written in it.

Will you read it with a truly open mind?

[jlousa]

Since I live downtown, and only stone's throw away from the viaducts, and I do not drive a car I should be biased, my economic background though makes me view things at the macro level. I can only hope that the people that matter when they read the report are thinking what is best for the citizens and not themselves.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Will you read it with a truly open mind?

I will give you an example of a report, instructed by a certain municipal council, that was drafted for 'political' purposes due to political heat that they were receiving. It was a simple hydrology report to prevent a certain development from happening due to political interference.

I was personally involved and the project comprised 338 residential homesites.

Had to go to the Environmental Appeal Board with two other 'factual' hydrology reports with witnesses testifying under oath. The 'political' hydrology report was tossed with condemnation by the EAB panel.

The REAL world out there is not what you may think.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Will you read it with a truly open mind?

Will you?

The sad legacy of this regime is the politicization of Vancouver's civil service. Vancouver voters if you truly feel you must vote for Robertson in 2011 do so, but please at least leave Meggs off your ballot.

(BTW, I expect vehicle traffic into downtown Detroit has decreased quite a bit over the last decade or two. Is that a good thing as well?)

[Lee_Haber8]

Originally Posted by jlousa

One of the major rules of investing, you do not plan the future by watching the past. It would be like driving a car looking thru the rear-view mirror.

Vehicle traffic into downtown has certainly come down slightly over the last decade, but that is no guarantee it will continue to happen. It is a very dangerous assumption, and very short-sighted to imply in an rfp that the successful proponent to consider that to be true.

The other assumptions aren't any better. They can very well come true, but if the report is supposed to be unbiased then why include any assumptions? Leave everything undetermined for the winning proponent to decide. I would be arguing the same case if they had listed the fact that vehicle registration has been increasing every year and is expected to continue to do so for the next 30yrs. Again a relative same assumption, but it would be equally wrong to expect the winning proponent to use in conducting the report as it would influence the outcome in a certain direction.

If you limit the amount of parking, I don't think it is a dangerous assumption that car traffic won't increase. Car traffic isn't this magical thing that just increases and decreases, it responds to the cost of driving to a destination compared with other modes. I use parking, because it turns out it is the grossest way that driving is subsidized (which is well illustrated in this article). If the City of Vancouver chose to remove parking spots or increase parking rates, traffic would decrease instantly. Whether that is something to be desired, is another story.

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I don't think there is any secret how Geoff will read the report regardless of what is written in it. What is sad is to see city staff write a report that caters to the council of the day. Staff should always cater to the needs of the populace and leave the politics out of it. Here's a link that shows Geoffs view on the matter.

http://www.geoffmeggs.ca/2010/09/11/as-v...ities-begin-their-own-freeway-teardowns/


Madmigs
There is no report, that is what the rfp is for.

Oh oops, I meant to the rfp that you quoted from.

[Locked In]

Here is the link to the RFP information page on the City's website. RFP itself is partway down.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I don't think there is any secret how Geoff will read the report regardless of what is written in it. What is sad is to see city staff write a report that caters to the council of the day. Staff should always cater to the needs of the populace and leave the politics out of it. Here's a link that shows Geoffs view on the matter.

http://www.geoffmeggs.ca/2010/09/11/as-v...ities-begin-their-own-freeway-teardowns/

Madmigs
There is no report, that is what the rfp is for.

What's Meggs fetish for Hogan's Alley? Is it just from having lived in Strathcona too long? Is he going to nash his teeth and lament that the light industrial west of Granville Island displaced Vancouver's proto East Indian community in the middle of the last century? Or moan about whomever was displaced by the similar light industrial development north of Broadway between Main and Cambie. Maybe he should weep for the cows displaced by development of Lulu island post-1958. The guy needs to get a grip.

And seriously, comparing Vancouver's infrastructure needs to NOLA post-Katrina?

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Will you?

Yes, why would I not?

[SpikePhanta]

I'm just hoping the rest of metro vancouver will just block Vancouver from removing the viaducts east of Main.

[Millennium2002]

There's really nothing stopping this council from demolishing it at any point... even the metro probably can't stop it as I assume that it's not part of the major road network that TransLink funds.

[Zassk]

I believe it is part of the major road network.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by SpikePhanta

I'm just hoping the rest of metro vancouver will just block Vancouver from removing the viaducts east of Main.

Just curious what good would that do. So the viaducts would be taken down west of Main but Vancouver would be forced to keep them east of Main. Which is only about a block long. So people would drive up on to the Viaduct to have it end a block later.

I must be missing something.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Pretty much nothing. But hey it's politics, that's most of what ever gets done. I recently moved within a few blocks of the viaducts, and I have to say it doesn't seem like they're as much of a blight as Megg's says they are from this perspective.

[Stingray2004]

Yeah, according to the City of Vancouver administrative report from June, 2010:

The Georgia Viaduct is part of TransLink’s designated Major Road Network(MRN), qualifying it for TransLink operating and capital cost-sharing.

This designation would also require TransLink approval to reduce the “people-moving capacity” of the corridor or to remove this corridor from the network. Provincial legislation also requires TransLink approval for any changes that would prohibit truck movement (this applies to all municipal roads, not just the MRN).

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20100624/documents/penv3.pdf

That will be the 'ducts saving grace. FWIW, Delta council has for years been trying to remove a portion of Ladner Trunk Road from the MRN - that portion east of Hwy 17 towards 72nd Ave. Translink has approved that removal subject to the completion of the SFPR in 2013 and only because of the SFPR, which is a superior alternative. Once a road has been designated as part of the MRN, it's very tough to remove it from same.