Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[red-paladin]

If it was a big ugly one like the Alaskan Way viaduct in Seattle, I would support removing them. However, as far as I'm concerned, the integration of the viaducts with Spectrum and GM Place is a great use of space. Also, for the most part, the viaducts are above other roads, lanes, and empty lots. I would like to see other buildings built in between and also integrated. They are not a waste of space. Having a road above something else is using space more efficiently, even if it can be ugly sometimes.

[wrenegade]

Aquilini already has plans for new towers to integrate with the Viaducts. They preliminary plans look decent. Chances are they will be built before the city makes a decision to tear down the viaducts, I wonder how that would impact the decision, and especially, the demolition process. All of that aside, the viaducts are a perfectly good transportation corridor that isn't hurting or hindering anything or anyone. Why are we even having this discussion when there are acres upon acres of land around NEFC that sit un-built and underused? I think it's ridiculous. This anti-car council drives me insane.

[The_Henry_Man]

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.

There's a good reason why that lunatic Mayor Greggy will be a one-term mayor.

[The_Henry_Man]

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

That picture says it all. Mayor Greggy just won the first-class dumbass award. It's even more amazing how so many Vancouverites vote for him in the first place. There's suckers born in COV every minute.

And COV claims that there's more bikers after these lanes are built, in their own "study". But they didn't have the balls to run that study in the fall and winter.

[trofirhen]

I wish Carole Taylor would run for mayor (and win, of course). She is such a voice of reason. At least I think so. She'd probably have this issue resolved in no time - and a number of other ones, too.

[geoff's two cents]

First, let me say I'm an agnostic when it comes to tearing down the viaducts (the subject of this thread). As for the bike lanes, however:

1) True, most of the time the automobile lanes are much busier than the bike lanes, but I've also been pleasantly surprised at times to see the automobile lanes empty and five or six cyclists using the bike lanes. Photography can be pretty manipulative. . .

2) Downtown density has increased; car trips downtown have decreased. This suggests there might be some wiggle-room in the number of lanes we need for automobile traffic.

3) You have to start somewhere. Vancouver has Canada's most conducive climate for cycling, and the geography for most of the city, cycling-wise, is just fine. Given the dearth of bike-specific infrastructure downtown, I'm not surprised we don't have more cyclists. The task is to see if the city can increase cycling mode share by adding cycling infrastructure.

4) Short of tearing down skyscrapers or paving over the False Creek and English Bay pedestrian areas to build a freeway through downtown, or instituting an economically disastrous "Big Dig" to put a freeway tunnel underneath, we're not going to get any more automobile lanes, but residential and commercial density is bound to increase. Solution? Shift transportation mode-share. Given that we're not going to get any new $2 billion subway lines downtown anytime soon, a cheap bike lane trial seems like a pretty good place to start. If we have a comprehensive network in place and cycling mode-share doesn't increase, then we can draw some conclusions.

5) I'm surprised the viaduct enthusiasts on this forum aren't more supportive of the Dunsmuir bike lane, as it seems to bode well for keeping the 'ducts in place.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

I'm surprised the viaduct enthusiasts on this forum aren't more supportive of the Dunsmuir bike lane, as it seems to bode well for keeping the 'ducts in place.

It speaks poorly of their judgment, that they cannot recognize and embrace an ally whose interests overlap with theirs.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

we're not going to get any more automobile lanes, but residential and commercial density is bound to increase. Solution? Shift transportation mode-share.

Great, but I question the choice of transportation mode in this case. You can fit a whole lot of transit capacity in the space of one lane, and the public have shown a far greater appetite for transit than bicycles.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Since you're aiming these remarks at me and my position I may as well respond.

I think the design decisions in the project are nothing other than half assed, and the overall effect here is another case of CoV green washing. By siding with this project I'd be giving passive approval to poor planning and what I believe are net losses to my community.

While I see the acknowledge this project has increased safety for cyclists, and can see why we would want it as a showpiece. The design that went into it wreaks of the crap we've been coming to expect from VV. I outlined all the design deficiencies I think are present in on the last page.

My question for you supporters of this bike lane is why it optimally placed. While it wouldn't have been along a straight line, the segregated lanes could have been built down Union to Carrall, then down Pender. It wouldn't have affected nearly as important of an artery, it would have used existing bike lane routes and it would have connected to other bike lanes/routes. Even without the detail defects, the whole concept of putting a bike lane on the viaducts seems flawed compared to this.

This would be in line with the other parts of the city which have had traffic atleast partially removed from the streets. Things like segregated bike lanes should not be built on the mainline roads if they're going to take so much capacity away. I think the following comparisons hold valid:

For the Granville St. Bridge for instance, the mainlines are Seymour St. and Howe St.; Granville could be completely turned into a bus or pedestrian mall without affecting the throughput of the bridge.

On Burrard, the choke pretty much only affects Thurlow getting onto the Bridge, but the majority of traffic still moves down Burrard St. rather than the 1 ways skirting it; mostly due to the bridge not having direct connections to the 1 ways.

On the viaducts, the mainlines haven't got streets with good throughput on either side. Pender gets bogged down in Chinatown, Robson dead ends and Pacific/Expo don't go meet the same traffic flows. There really aren't many options for the East/West traffic flow, and removing capacity from the best way of getting it downtown. We pretty much maximized the negative traffic impacts on this one and will be paying with lost time, lost economic activity and additional GHGs.

What's so bad about Pender? I'll just continue to look on the cynically bright side of this, they made me some nice new parking spots for my motorcycle

[racc]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Great, but I question the choice of transportation mode in this case. You can fit a whole lot of transit capacity in the space of one lane, and the public have shown a far greater appetite for transit than bicycles.

There already is a rapid transit line with the capacity of 50,000 passengers per hour paralleling Dunsmuir so there is little need for transit on the surface.

While transit certainly does need improving, the transit system in the city is of much better quality than the bicycle network. Not surprising as billions of dollars have been invested in transit while only tens of millions have been invested in cycling. If there was a network of separated lanes throughout the city so that people could get from anywhere to anywhere on separated bike routes, the number of people cycling would be much higher. Not sure if the cycling levels would reach transit levels but it really doesn't matter. Cycling tends to be good for shorter trips while transit is better for longer trips. They are actually quite complimentary allowing people to live car free or car light lives.

[Alex Mackinnon]

What's so bad about cycling in this city anyways? It's really not hard to beat buses along their routes as is. Heading E/W across Vancouver I could even match times with my car on good days (for 13km). The bridges is where I found the most annoyance, Burrard notwithstanding. Knight St. is definitely the worst but Patullo is not much better.

When I think of the number of traffic circles which could have been installed the price of these bike lanes...

[SpikePhanta]

I think someone did mention in this thread a long time ago that if they keep the viaducts we could shift the commercial traffic from pender and hastings onto the viaducts. Plus the viaducts have a highway feel, putting a bike lane on pender seems better. (people would much likely prefer biking in a community and not on a major road.

I just hope that if COV tries to remove the viaducts, the other cities would oppose it.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by SpikePhanta

Plus the viaducts have a highway feel, putting a bike lane on pender seems better. (people would much likely prefer biking in a community and not on a major road.

Cyclists hate stop-and-go traffic as much as anyone. If free-flow traffic for 5 blocks is a big deal for motorists, it's equally appreciated by cyclists. As I said, with regard to keeping the viaducts, our interests are aligned.

[Alex Mackinnon]

It would be 3 light controlled intersections for cyclists, versus a traffic jam for cars. Keefer and Carrall isn't busy though. Add maybe 30 seconds to a few hundred cyclist's or several minutes to a few thousand motorist's trip times. Also, wasn't speed not a particularly big selling point on this project?

[golog]

How about making better use of the viaducts while they have years left in them? Removing the viaducts feels like an ego-driven project. I can understand a SimCity style desire for neatness, but you could accomplish more for less money elsewhere I'm sure. Like bulldozing some of the aborted experiments of subdivisions that destroy through road access.

Look at the viaducts as an opportunity. Nothing will grow well under them, so it will be paved. Paved ground, covered above from the rain, edge of downtown, at a planned entertainment district, near Skytrain...

How about fixing it up for a public market. By day it could be a fish/baking/craft offshoot of Granville Island Market, and by night it could be a Richmond Night Market with carnival food, gizmos, clothing and accessories...

It should do well with all the upcoming developments in NE False Creek

[Metro-One]

^^ I have long mentioned that, especially in a city core where we are rapidly loosing fair ground / event space. Such a market / fait atmosphere would be perfect by the stadiums under the ducts. And for me, the constant car and skytrain traffic going through would help give it a busy urban vibe at night as well.

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Cyclists hate stop-and-go traffic as much as anyone. If free-flow traffic for 5 blocks is a big deal for motorists, it's equally appreciated by cyclists. As I said, with regard to keeping the viaducts, our interests are aligned.

Hey, I am probably one of the biggest supporters on here for keeping the viaducts, and I agree with you, I was happy to see the bike lane implemented on them in the hopes it will further establish their reputation as a valuable link.

The only problem I have with the bike lane is the esthetics of it. The simple concrete barriers they are using now has to go, they need to put in something that is more appealing in design and more permanent in look. The other problem is the Main Street on ramp set up. The lane interaction / merge set up there needs to be redesigned (not structurally, just using the road paint, hehe).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

My question for you supporters of this bike lane is why it optimally placed. While it wouldn't have been along a straight line, the segregated lanes could have been built down Union to Carrall, then down Pender.

Pender is a major transit artery and a two-way street. What you're proposing would cut capacity in one direction by 50% and cause much bigger problems by having buses block all traffic while they're stopping to pick up and discharge passengers.

It's not all just about cars, you know. Have a look at the City of Vancouver's transportation plan:

http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/plan/pdf/ppt681.pdf

These stats are from a few years back, but the trends documented in this report have continued unabated. Just as many people come downtown by transit as they do by car. The number of car trips coming downtown has been decreasing for many years. Pedestrian, transit and cycling trips have been increasing for many years. I know you find it hard to believe, but the people commuting downtown by car are actually a minority. You just have to face it - times they are a-changing, and it's inevitable that space will be reallocated to accommodate the way city residents are choosing to travel.

It's not just a Vancouver thing - it's happening in cities all over the world. If anything, North America is behind the times on this.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Pender after carrall has a 5 lane cross section for most of that area.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Pender after carrall has a 5 lane cross section for most of that area.

It's 4 lanes west of Hamilton (Victory Square).

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Pender is a major transit artery and a two-way street. What you're proposing would cut capacity in one direction by 50% and cause much bigger problems by having buses block all traffic while they're stopping to pick up and discharge passengers.

It's not all just about cars, you know. Have a look at the City of Vancouver's transportation plan:

http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/plan/pdf/ppt681.pdf

These stats are from a few years back, but the trends documented in this report have continued unabated. Just as many people come downtown by transit as they do by car. The number of car trips coming downtown has been decreasing for many years. Pedestrian, transit and cycling trips have been increasing for many years. I know you find it hard to believe, but the people commuting downtown by car are actually a minority. You just have to face it - times they are a-changing, and it's inevitable that space will be reallocated to accommodate the way city residents are choosing to travel.

It's not just a Vancouver thing - it's happening in cities all over the world. If anything, North America is behind the times on this.

The "read between the lines" version of that reports could be interpreted to reveal a few interesting facts:
-Metro residents aren't bothering to come downtown anymore.
-job creation in the City lags behind the region and even CoV population growth.
Some see those as 'victories" I guess.