Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by whatnext

It does indeed go both ways. And majority rules.

True but I'd always vote against such an idea.

I personally don't see amalgamation happening. I don't think you would find a majority of people amongst the different cities that would support amalgamation together.

[whatnext]

Actually there's a whole thread on amalgamation here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=183494&highlight=amalgamation

[twoNeurons]

A Stronger regional government is a better idea than amalgamation, imho. Services should be unified under one "Metro Vancouver" banner. Things like policing, garbage, transportation should be handled by a regional layer.

Translink essentially would become a part of this "Metro" layer, acting as a buffer between the province and the cities. Of course, this would also give the region more sway than all the little mayors going to Victoria to plead their case.

[racc]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

if they tear down the Viaducts now, wait 15 or so years. They'll be a big push to reconstruct them, or something like them, as Vancouver grows inexorably bigger, the number of vehicles increase, and trying to do it with transit alone won't meet needs.

As I said, wait.

Not likely. Vancouver has been growing "inexorably bigger" for the last several decades yet during the last decade, motor vehicle traffic to downtown has been dropping while all other modes have been increasing.

Why on earth would you expect that trend to change?

[Zassk]

If the viaducts are truly not needed for cars, then the time is ripe to consider other uses for them, such as LRT. Tearing down would only be logical if the viaducts were useless for all modes of transportation.

[Alex Mackinnon]

That's a fairly large overstatement.

They still handle 50000 trips per day. They're also already undergoing repurposing in two ways, firstly the bike lanes (which I don't believe were well executed) and secondly the streetcar Vancouver wants to install will likely use the viaduct's footprint to provide space for an Operations and Maintenance Centre.

There's no buses that take the viaduct as most have stops in Chinatown. The most likely route for an LRT would also be down Hastings, which you could really easily traffic calm by making a Malkin Connector.

[Metro-One]

If your argument is to reduce SOV within the area, would it not make sense to do so on the surface streets, which are destined to become primarily residential and commercial avenues with heavy foot, tram and cycling traffic, and allow the viaducts to remain (the added bonus here is all industrial and commercial traffic could still be hearded onto the ducts)

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

firstly the bike lanes (which I don't believe were well executed)

Not to get too off-topic, but I'm curious what aspect of the viaduct bike lane you think needs improvement?

[Millennium2002]

He's probably referring to the nightmare merge at the on-ramp from Main Street.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

He's probably referring to the nightmare merge at the on-ramp from Main Street.

That's a bloody dangerous merge since the the installation of the underused bike lane. The should really have removed the outer turn lane NB on Main onto the viaduct but that would result in huge line of traffic on Main. And of course <nudge, nudge, wink, wink> this is all about reducing vehicle emissions, right?

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That's a bloody dangerous merge since the the installation of the underused bike lane.

No disrespect, but I wasn't asking for your opinion. I was asking Alex Mackinnon to elaborate on his comment.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

No disrespect, but I wasn't asking for your opinion. I was asking Alex Mackinnon to elaborate on his comment.

I was responding to Allan's comment, not yours. Feel free to start your own IBB.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Well, I'm honestly glad you asked porfiry.

Flow

My biggest beef is that such a huge amount of road capacity has been lost on this project. Everything is bottlenecked at Citadel Parade and Beatty. The changes here go way beyond losing 1 lane and 33% of the throughput. The amount of volume being pushed on those 2 lanes means none of the traffic synchonizes with the green wave any more, so you probably have about a 30-40% drop in throughput on the remaining lanes as well. Additionally, the left lane has no turn lane, or turn priority over the crosswalk, which means a large portion of the time only the right hand lane is flowing.

The results are pretty dramatic. I went to get on the viaducts today going counterflow at 5:30pm and traffic was backed up past Main St. coming from prior. The end result is about 10 minutes of idling from my car or motorcycle. Either way I'm not happy to have wasted time, and a lot of useless CO2 has been created. If the Citadel, Beatty and Cambie St. intersections could have been left with a 3 lane cross section, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having debate right now.


Design

While I do like all the nice touches that CoV put in on the bike lane side of things, the redesigned car lanes are pretty pathetic. The lanes are both narrow and not particularly straight; which is brilliant considering that this is supposedly the route commercial traffic is supposed to take.

Another problem is the previously commented on Main St. on ramp. It expects cars to turn and merge at roughly the same time. Even slightly extending the 2nd lane would make this merge a lot better; all that would be needed is a small excavation into the grass slope and a retaining wall.

Another poor design choice occurs between Hornby and Burrard. The left through lane ends for no apparent reason, turning into a turn lane; while another lane is created on the far right with no source feeding it. The result is that most of the through traffic has to merge right a lane.



Cycling

While I see a whole lot of people on Union St. and lots of bikes (and scooters) parked along the bike lanes, I still don't see a large enough amount of users on the viaducts. While I'm not doing traffic counts, I'd bet thats because most of the Union St. users aren't going all the way downtown, and that downtown users may be coming from other directions or are local users.

I used commute by bike on a route that took me from UBC to the DTES. I avoided downtown, even with the Burrard St. bike lane. The Dunsmuir lanes wouldn't have changed that. The reason being that 8th Ave. bike route and similar routes were already very efficient. With additional traffic circles along these types (eliminate all 2 way stops perhaps?) of routes you could make 9/10ths of the journey far more efficient for many riders, without most of the downside that these biking megaprojects have.



While I like the concept of separated bike lanes, the compromises made to accommodate the bike lanes are rendering the viaducts significantly less useful and since Councillor Meggs is looking to get them torn down any reductions in apparent utility might be used as a way of justifying their demise; even if it is induced.

[whatnext]

Thanks Alex, for summing that up very well (and more politely than I did).

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Another problem is the previously commented on Main St. on ramp. It expects cars to turn and merge at roughly the same time. Even slightly extending the 2nd lane would make this merge a lot better; all that would be needed is a small excavation into the grass slope and a retaining wall.

That seems entirely reasonable. There's no reason why you cannot accommodate the bike lane entrance and a slightly extended merge (well, except for the money needed). The other friction points can be easily improved with some revised signal timings and dedicated turn signals.

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

since Councillor Meggs is looking to get them torn down any reductions in apparent utility might be used as a way of justifying their demise; even if it is induced.

I completely disagree, the addition of bike lanes makes it politically more difficult to justify their demise.

[EastVanMark]

Here we go again... more "experts" takes on the viaducts.


http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/122747--expert-viaducts-should-be-torn-down

[Stingray2004]

Yeah, the profs in their ivory towers.

All of the comments in that 1130 new story are against removal. Some interesting feedback:

1. The only thing that will eventually sink into the minds of Vancouver's mayor and council, is when business and cars are gone from Vancouver, and the tax income as well.

2. Please help me stop the restriction of cars to Vancouver. We in Coquitlam dont ride our bike to work at 5:30 A.M. to my office on Hornby nor to a Canucks or Lions game.

3. The viaducts move traffic into and from the downtown core very efficiently.

4. People need off and on the peninsula, removing roads and lanes will not make people take our already overcrowded (during peak hours) transportation system.

5. They would not be a waste of space if they were properly completed as originally planned.

6. Before the city goes and does something stupid like tearing down the main arteries into Vancouver, it might want to consider using it to continue a freeway system from Hwy 1 into downtown.

7. I used the viaducts 4-6 times a day for 30 years and would not have been so productive without them. I thank the City for making the viaducts available and useful to me and allow it to become part of my life.

Couldn't agree more.

And here's the Dunsmuir bike lane from today. One can draw their own conclusion:



Source: http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/122747--expert-viaducts-should-be-torn-down

[whatnext]

Shh, one dare not suggest the hallowed bike lanes are underused!

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Yeah, the profs in their ivory towers.

All of the comments in that 1130 new story are against removal. Some interesting feedback:



Couldn't agree more.

And here's the Dunsmuir bike lane from today. One can draw their own conclusion:



Source: http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/122747--expert-viaducts-should-be-torn-down

Best picture of the year award!

Before they started building Spectrum and taking lanes away for construction, then putting in the bike lane, that never happened, ever.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Shh, one dare not suggest the hallowed bike lanes are underused!

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Here we go again... more "experts" takes on the viaducts.


http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/122747--expert-viaducts-should-be-torn-down

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Yeah, the profs in their ivory towers.

All of the comments in that 1130 new story are against removal. Some interesting feedback:



Couldn't agree more.

And here's the Dunsmuir bike lane from today. One can draw their own conclusion:



Source: http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/122747--expert-viaducts-should-be-torn-down

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Best picture of the year award!

Before they started building Spectrum and taking lanes away for construction, then putting in the bike lane, that never happened, ever.

People are finally realizing that tearing out the viaducts would be rather like amputating your legs, then wondering why it's difficult to walk.