Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by 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.

And think of how small of a blight they could be if council actually took some innitiative to utalize them as I have shown before (dry public plaza space, lighting effects, the use of vines and or greenery, maybe some designated urban art, an area for a year round night market, an OMC location for our proposed street car network, possible bike lanes sheltered from the rain, restaurant and other commercial space built below, not to mention propsals such as the GM place office tower that is built around them in an interesting way (enough of our cockie cutter style condos / buildings) not to mention how much they have already dissappeared around the spectrum development.

Then, here is the largest and most short sighted problem with the proposal of tearing them down:

The city of Vancouver says it wants toreduce SOV access to downtown in a region that is expected to grow by another 1 million (or more) in the coming decades. Even if the per capita use of SOV is reduced, it is likely that if we want downtown to remain as important as it is today as a business, cultural and political centre in Metro-Vancouver, the amount of SOV trips into downtown will likley remain the same or increase. Not to mentiopn that as they build more residence downtown, that is more people and infarastructure requiring services, many of such, such as trades people and large deliveries, can not use public transit.

OK, now lets say that some how downtown is able to reduce the # of vehicles coming into downtown, does it not make more sense to take away the excess road capacity from the SURFACE STREETS? Do they not want to make the surface streets in the area more pedestrian and cycling orientated as the new condos are put up along NEFC? And what about the street car? Will that not also take away vehicle capacity along Hastings and its other planned routes? Then what about the desire to reduce that section of hastings to 30kmh?

So they want to take away 5/6 lanes of east / west connection from dowtown to the bulk of metro-Vancouver to its east by tearing down the ducts, andthen continue to reduce road capacity on the ground level as well? Do they not know that downtown is nearly an island and it is only connected to the east by about 1-2 km of land? Do they not know that downtown does not have the luxury of a complete grid surrounding it, or even surrounding 50% of it, or even 25% of it?

Then think of all the heavier commercial / industrial / emnergency / etc... traffic that will be forced onto the roads below, designated to become local rediential / commercial streets. Do you really want more heavy vehicles going through Gas Town and through Hastings alongside the street cars?

Then there is the steep grade of the escarpment, some form of a ramp will have to be built to climb it, and I am guessing such a ramp will be more intrusive to the areas around the Stadiuyms than the current viaducts.

Does it not make sense to keep them, build around them, and use the potential services they offer, while reducing the SOV capacity along the surface streets to create a more pedestrian, cycling and transit friendly atmosphere?

Then there is also the point that if a new St. Pauls is built the ducts offer a direct route from downtown to the Hospital with no traffic obstructions!

Also, will there not be traffic still trying to use the Lions Gate Bridge? That is unless Vancouver is willing to build a new 4 to 6 lane crossing near Main Street to take away that demand to downtown. (knowing Vancouver they would probably build a new 3 lane crossing so they dont add any more lanes into the city if they closed the Lions Gate.....)

Also there is the fact that there is very little to gain in density by their removal as shown by jlousa, and as shown he is the man to trust with such numbers.

OK, end rant, I have said it all before, but it has to be said again.

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by cabotp

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.

Sorry I meant West.....

[racc]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The city of Vancouver says it wants toreduce SOV access to downtown in a region that is expected to grow by another 1 million (or more) in the coming decades. Even if the per capita use of SOV is reduced, it is likely that if we want downtown to remain as important as it is today as a business, cultural and political centre in Metro-Vancouver, the amount of SOV trips into downtown will likley remain the same or increase. Not to mentiopn that as they build more residence downtown, that is more people and infarastructure requiring services, many of such, such as trades people and large deliveries, can not use public transit.

The population of Vancouver and the region has risen dramatically over the last decade yet the number of automobiles coming downtown has decreased to the point where lanes of traffic can be reallocated on the Viaduct. I would expect that this trend will continue as the area densifies, as transit improves and as cycling facilities improve. There is no evidence to support your contention that motor vehicle traffic downtown will increase as population increases.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by racc

The population of Vancouver and the region has risen dramatically over the last decade yet the number of automobiles coming downtown has decreased to the point where lanes of traffic can be reallocated on the Viaduct. I would expect that this trend will continue as the area densifies, as transit improves and as cycling facilities improve. There is no evidence to support your contention that motor vehicle traffic downtown will increase as population increases.

And once again I ask: where are the stats showing the amount of vehicles leaving downtown? Certainly my anecdotal observations over a lifetime of living here would indicate it has increased.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And once again I ask: where are the stats showing the amount of vehicles leaving downtown? Certainly my anecdotal observations over a lifetime of living here would indicate it has increased.

It's a fair enough question, but it seems unlikely that the peak outbound flow would be in the same direction and time as the peak inbound flow, so I'm guessing that it's largely irrelevant in peak capacity terms.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

... if we want downtown to remain as important as it is today as a business, cultural and political centre in Metro-Vancouver...

Well, maybe this is where the debate should be occurring.

After all, there's nothing written in stone that downtown Vancouver has to business and cultural centre of the area. One sure way to decrease traffic downtown is to discourage businesses and offices downtown, to make it more of tourist and recreational centre.

I'm not saying that's how things will end up if we keep choking off vehicle traffic, or how they should end up, but certainly, if the overarching goal is to prevent or limit car traffic downtown, maybe we should be questioning our underlying assumptions as to what downtown Vancouver will, or should be, in the next few decades. After all, one sure way to decrease car traffic downtown is to decrease the need or desire for people to travel downtown.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by IanS

...there's nothing written in stone that downtown Vancouver has to business and cultural centre of the area. One sure way to decrease traffic downtown is to discourage businesses and offices downtown, to make it more of tourist and recreational centre.

This is essentially what one of the goals of Greater Vancouver's Livable Region Strategic Plan proposes - alternatives to downtown growth:

Regional Town Centres: Greater Vancouver’s eight regional town centres will accommodate a large share of the region’s future higher density commercial and residential growth with a high level of transit access and interconnection.

from: http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/LRSP.pdf

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

This is essentially what one of the goals of Greater Vancouver's Livable Region Strategic Plan proposes - alternatives to downtown growth:

from: http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/LRSP.pdf

Which is why the Livable Region Strategy is such a disaster. Its time that piece of Seventies-think be put on the scrap heap. Without the critical mass of a vibrant downtown CBD no area will have the clout, if you will, for institutions such as a world class art gallery. The LRS make mass transit planning a nightmare. It also makes the planners' Utopian assumption that people will live next to their work, without taking into account real world factors. Having spent billions on ALRT into downtown its madness to hobble the area. Quite frankly, its time Walter Hardwick's ghost was exorcised from Metro's planning.

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And once again I ask: where are the stats showing the amount of vehicles leaving downtown? Certainly my anecdotal observations over a lifetime of living here would indicate it has increased.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/stats/plantransport/index.htm

Overall, the City of Vancouver’s transportation policies have been successful. Population and employment in Vancouver grew steadily between 1996 and 2006, resulting in a 23% increase in trips to Vancouver. However, the number of vehicles entering and leaving the city actually decreased by 10% over the same period. Trips to downtown increased 22% in ten years, yet vehicles entering and leaving the Central Business District decreased by 7%. New trips to downtown have been by transit, cycling and walking. In particular, walking has become the fastest growing and most important way of getting around the downtown.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by AlexYVR

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/stats/plantransport/index.htm

Thanks for that, though I still find it strange they won't specifically break out trips leaving Vancouver. Also thought this was interesting:

Car ownership has increased overall in the City of Vancouver, from about 267,000 vehicles in 1991 to 312,000 in 2006; an increase of 17%. However, during the same period (1991 to 2006) population increased from 472,000 to 578,000, a 23% increase. This means that vehicle ownership per resident fell from 0.57 to 0.54; this is the opposite of what has happened in Metro Vancouver as a whole over the same period, where there are more vehicles per person.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by racc

The population of Vancouver and the region has risen dramatically over the last decade yet the number of automobiles coming downtown has decreased to the point where lanes of traffic can be reallocated on the Viaduct. I would expect that this trend will continue as the area densifies, as transit improves and as cycling facilities improve. There is no evidence to support your contention that motor vehicle traffic downtown will increase as population increases.

Yes, during peak hours, traffic into/out of the downtown core has decreased.

Nevertheless, outside of peak hours, traffic has increased within the CoV. I have certainly noticed same over the past 2 decades.

For example, the old Westcoast Transmission and BC Hydro 'office buildings' downtown were converted into condos years ago. And that's the trend within the CBD.

Our company moved out of the downtown core as the rents were too high and travelling within the downtown core took at least 15/20 minutes itself inclusive of parking.

With the office now in Richmond, within the Hwy 99/99/ Knight freeway triangle, everyone saves at least 1/2 hour per day in travelling time. Just park right at the office front door. Time is money.

As for the Liveable Regional Strategic Plan, welcome to the Los Angelization of Metro Vancouver. Everyone travelling everywhere all day long.

No wonder the C-train in Calgary is so successful - it's linear and meets the needs of its massive CBD office district. Anyone who thinks that same will be successful within Metro Vancouver, with our Los Angelization of employment, better re-analyze transit. It's likely to still remain at ~15% of Metro Vancouver movements.

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Yes, during peak hours, traffic into/out of the downtown core has decreased.

Nevertheless, outside of peak hours, traffic has increased within the CoV. I have certainly noticed same over the past 2 decades.

For example, the old Westcoast Transmission and BC Hydro 'office buildings' on West Georgia was converted into condos years ago. And that's a trend within the CBD.

Our company moved out of the downtown core as the rents were ridiculously high and travelling within the downtown core took at least 15/20 minutes itself inclusive of parking.

With the office now in Richmond, within the Hwy 99/99/ Knight freeway triangle, everyone saves at least 1/2 hour per day in travelling time. Just park right at the office front door. Time is money.

As for the Liveable Regional Strategic Plan, welcome to the Los Angelization of Metro Vancouver. Everyone travelling everywhere all day long.

No wonder the C-train in Calgary is so successful - it's linear and meets the needs of its massive CBD office district. Anyone who thinks that same will be successful within Metro Vancouver, with our Los Angelization of employment, better re-analyze transit. It's likely to still remain at ~15% of Metro Vancouver movements.

Do you have data to back up the claims?

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by AlexYVR

Do you have data to back up the claims?

That's akin to saying if moon comes out at night. It's just common knowledge, backed up with enough documented evidence even here on SSP, combined with personal experience.

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Yes, during peak hours, traffic into/out of the downtown core has decreased.

Nevertheless, outside of peak hours, traffic has increased within the CoV. I have certainly noticed same over the past 2 decades.

For example, the old Westcoast Transmission 'office building' on West Georgia was converted into condos years ago. And that's a trend within the CBD.

Our company moved out of the downtown core as the rents were ridiculously high and travelling within the downtown core took at least 15/20 minutes itself inclusive of parking.

With the office now in Richmond, within the Hwy 99/99/ Knight freeway triangle, everyone saves at least 1/2 hour per day in travelling time. Just park right at the office front door. Time is money.

As for the Liveable Regional Strategic Plan, welcome to the Los Angelization of Metro Vancouver. Everyone travelling everywhere all day long.

No wonder the C-train in Calgary is so successful - it's linear and meets the needs of its massive CBD office district. Anyone who thinks that same will be successful within Metro Vancouver, with our Los Angelization of employment, better re-analyze transit. It's likely to still remain at ~15% of Metro Vancouver movements.

One thing with Vancouver - our downtown is not at the center of the city like Calgary. For all intense and purposes its on the western edge of the city, which in itself creates all sorts of problems. As traffic is coming limited to mostly coming from the east and the south, with some from the North. Not to mention the CBD is hemmed in by water on two/two and a half sides. And for the entire region as a whole we are jammed against the US border to the South, ocean to the West, and mountains to the North, with several sizable waterways interspersed throughout the area.

You claim that the LRS is going to make everyone drive all day, yet your office moved to make everyone's trips shorter by at least 15 minutes(as you said it used to take 15/20 to park). Which would imply you now work closer to home. Which is what the LRS, not to mention the latest draft regional strategy for Metro Vancouver, is trying to promote.

Also not everyone has a 9-5 job, restaurant and cafe work for example, even retail with more stores open later, there are several shifts throughout the day. A lot of high-tech jobs are on flex time so people may start anywhere between 8am and 10am, and leave during a similar time range later in the day. Having traffic more even throughout the day is a better use of our road system, instead of one giant jam in the morning and another at night, and barely used for the rest of the day.

Having jobs spread out means that not everyone is trying to squeeze into one tiny section of Metro Vancouver. If our core business district was say in west burnaby/east vancouver, it would have room to grow in most directions, as well as having people go to it from more directions. And out where I live in Burnaby, near Still Creek drive, a lot of people who work in that high-tech park, live in the towers next to the Gilmore skytrain station. Not all nor a majority, but not an insignificant # either.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by madmigs

You claim that the LRS is going to make everyone drive all day, yet your office moved to make everyone's trips shorter by at least 15 minutes(as you said it used to take 15/20 to park). Which would imply you now work closer to home. Which is what the LRS, not to mention the latest draft regional strategy for Metro Vancouver, is trying to promote.

Correct and life is more liveable in that regard. Nevertheless, both I and everyone else still need to meet with either clients or service providers and, as such, need to travel to either downtown Vancouver or elsewhere within Metro Vancouver on many days.

Even then, I still have my home office that provides me with further options throughout the day. And I'm probably lucky in that regard.

[jlousa]

The LRSP is a concept that was way ahead of it's time, it's only starting to show it's fruit now and it'll continue to improve our quality of life as it flourishes in time. I don't think we need to worry about CBD losing it's draw though. Although we might have lost certain offices to the burbs, it has gained office space year after year and the CBD has never had as much office space as it does today. There are also multiple new office towers in the works (some of which aren't yet public) that will definitely add additionally traffic into the core.
Traffic is down into the core for a couple of big reasons, a large increase in population that has placed a lot of workers close to work. The other is the E/M Line, Canada Line and the WCE have changed commute patterns.
To keep up with existing infrastructure we need to increase downtown's population plus increase capacity on existing lines. We're going to be hard pressed to do much on either of those two fronts so why would we want to remove existing road infrastructure when it won't be able to be absorbed with existing funds.

[racc]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The LRSP is a concept that was way ahead of it's time, it's only starting to show it's fruit now and it'll continue to improve our quality of life as it flourishes in time. I don't think we need to worry about CBD losing it's draw though. Although we might have lost certain offices to the burbs, it has gained office space year after year and the CBD has never had as much office space as it does today. There are also multiple new office towers in the works (some of which aren't yet public) that will definitely add additionally traffic into the core.

Well said

Originally Posted by jlousa

Traffic is down into the core for a couple of big reasons, a large increase in population that has placed a lot of workers close to work. The other is the E/M Line, Canada Line and the WCE have changed commute patterns.
To keep up with existing infrastructure we need to increase downtown's population plus increase capacity on existing lines. We're going to be hard pressed to do much on either of those two fronts so why would we want to remove existing road infrastructure when it won't be able to be absorbed with existing funds.

This why the premier and the mayors are meeting on the 23rd. Lets encourage them to agree to support the funding required for the needed transit expansion.

Replacing the viaducts with housing will increase the population near downtown although I know we disagree on the magnitude of that. I expect the city's study will help settle that debate.

[jlousa]

Even city staff realizes there is no economic gain by removing the viaducts, if you read the rfp the city did not include economic gain as a consideration for removing the viaduct because they know it's a mute point, unlike Geoff Meggs who until recently kept stating that notion.

At the NEFC noise levels presentation just yesterday, put on by city staff, they mentioned that they expect the viaducts to remain in place and the city owned parcel would become a youth oriented park and that Concord Pacific and Aquillini would be proceeding with building around them on their parcels.
They expect 5000jobs and 7200residents in 19 buildings upon buildout. Funny how all that is possible and people from outside the core can still continue to travel into the core using existing paid for infrastructure.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The LRS make mass transit planning a nightmare. It also makes the planners' Utopian assumption that people will live next to their work, without taking into account real world factors. Having spent billions on ALRT into downtown its madness to hobble the area.

The LRS doesn't create a lot of transit nightmares in Vancouver. In fact, the town centres act like "magnets" for dense development and generally are and were well-placed for transit expansion now and into the future.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Which is why the Livable Region Strategy is such a disaster. Its time that piece of Seventies-think be put on the scrap heap. Without the critical mass of a vibrant downtown CBD no area will have the clout, if you will, for institutions such as a world class art gallery. The LRS make mass transit planning a nightmare. It also makes the planners' Utopian assumption that people will live next to their work, without taking into account real world factors. Having spent billions on ALRT into downtown its madness to hobble the area. Quite frankly, its time Walter Hardwick's ghost was exorcised from Metro's planning.

No one ever said that the LRS was supposed to hobble downtown Vancouver. Downtown Vancouver even under the LRS plan was always supposed to be the main focal point. But instead of carrying 90% of the load it was designed to spread some of that load to other parts of the region.

Not every business needs to have an office downtown.