Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

It's your fault you've failed to adapt by adjusting your route or timing. It's your fault you've failed to purchase a hybrid that turns off the engine when stopped. It's your fault that you've thumbed your nose at low-carbon options like transit or cycling.

Your carbon emissions are your fault.

If only everyone's life were so 2 dimensional!

I will start by saying when I can, I do take public transit (skytrain and the WCE), and when I can I do walk, and sometimes bike (when the weather is nice), but sadly my life is a little more complicated then that, for my car is also a tool for work. Often I have to travel to many different locations throughout the metro area in a single day, lugging around large quantities of equipment. And that is the thing, there are more people than you realize that need their vehicle for work, to cary equipment or to take them to areas that transit, even in the best of nations, does not reach. Not everyone had a 9 to 5 life that required little equipment / luggage to carry. There are families that need to be in many places in one day as well, etc...

Also, not everyone can afford to live close to work (and for many work is not always in the same place, and work is not their only daily destination, some work and go to school, etc...), and some people really do value their time and in some situations, transit, biking or walking is just far too slow and inconvenient.

Now, i agree with vehicle choice (hence I drive a 4 banger), but some people will always require larger vehicles, again often for work.

Vancouver's "Green City" campaign is so false because they still rely on the outline suburbs for their storage yards, industrial parks, shipment of goods, etc... Hence I laughed at that councilors remark about the new Hastings park not being "Green Enough." i am sorry, why does every park / facility in our city need to be a nature park in order to be "green" Hastings park is, and hopefully will remain, an amusement park. Because you know what is far more green than turning Hastings park into a nature Park, not having families flying to Disneyland or driving for hours on the interstate to a six flags for their amusement park family fix!

the same way keeping the viaducts for east / west traffic flowing into and out of downtown while revamping the streets below into pedestrian, tram and cycling friendly streets is far more green than tearing them down and having all those "local" streets jamming in the commercial and cross region traffic with the local traffic, cyclists, pedestrians and potential trams.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

... There are families that need to be in many places in one day as well, etc...

Also, not everyone can afford to live close to work (and for many work is not always in the same place, and work is not their only daily destination, some work and go to school, etc...), and some people really do value their time and in some situations, transit, biking or walking is just far too slow and inconvenient.

Now, i agree with vehicle choice (hence I drive a 4 banger), but some people will always require larger vehicles, again often for work.

Vancouver's "Green City" campaign is so false because they still rely on the outline suburbs for their storage yards, industrial parks, shipment of goods, etc...

Indeed. Its very easy for a single male who lives downtown and walks to his government job to hector everyone else about how green they should be.

And as you point out, they're quite happy to live off the back of others' evil carbon footprints. Whether its the truck driver who delivered their brie, the server who had to drive in to serve them their pinot gris etc.

If they really wanted to walk the talk they could go live off the grid in the Interior somewhere, raising organic goats.

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I will start by saying when I can, I do take public transit (skytrain and the WCE), and when I can I do walk, and sometimes bike (when the weather is nice), but sadly my life is a little more complicated then that, for my car is also a tool for work. Often I have to travel to many different locations throughout the metro area in a single day, lugging around large quantities of equipment. And that is the thing, there are more people than you realize that need their vehicle for work, to cary equipment or to take them to areas that transit, even in the best of nations, does not reach. Not everyone had a 9 to 5 life that required little equipment / luggage to carry. There are families that need to be in many places in one day as well, etc...

Thanks, as always, for intervening! I've always said this, and am personally very critical of the class politics at stake in defining certain white collar work as "green." And certainly most tradespeople, ambulances, delivery trucks, law enforcement, mobile sales and real estate agents need roads to drive on, no question. There's also the issue of earthquakes, tsunamis and global terrorism, which mandate some way of providing efficient access to the downtown core in the event of an emergency (assuming the viaducts are still standing!).

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Also, not everyone can afford to live close to work (and for many work is not always in the same place, and work is not their only daily destination, some work and go to school, etc...), and some people really do value their time and in some situations, transit, biking or walking is just far too slow and inconvenient.

I agree and disagree. Many commuters do have a say in where they choose to live. Rent in many parts of the city (west end, Mount Pleasant, Commercial, Collingwood) is comparable to what it is in the 'burbs (I've lived in both). The trade-off is always one of living space versus transit-accessibility. I read recently that there are more school children living in the west end than in both Kerrisdale and Kitsilano (traditional "family-oriented" neighborhoods), which suggests that many families do not see a disadvantage in having smaller homes with no backyard if that means they can walk and take transit wherever they need to go. Other families with the same options (i.e. white collar jobs that don't require vehicles) decide in favor of larger living spaces at the expense of transit accessibility. I'm sure it's frustrating for these people when gas prices go up or the city of Vancouver decides to make cycling and transit a priority, but I don't feel sorry for them - in the same way that suburban-dwellers shouldn't feel sorry for urbanites who prefer public parks and beaches to a private backyard.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Vancouver's "Green City" campaign is so false because they still rely on the outline suburbs for their storage yards, industrial parks, shipment of goods, etc...

I agree, and wish that, where possible, industrial, residential and commercial uses were better integrated. Granville Island is the best local example of this.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

keeping the viaducts for east / west traffic flowing into and out of downtown while revamping the streets below into pedestrian, tram and cycling friendly streets is far more green than tearing them down and having all those "local" streets jamming in the commercial and cross region traffic with the local traffic, cyclists, pedestrians and potential trams.

I'm not sure about this, but do think that there should at least be a toll on any express route into downtown for non-industrial, non-commercial and non-public services traffic. Many large cities have tolled express routes - Toronto, Paris, etc. In Vancouver's case, if toll rates on the viaducts were differentiated by use (which could be determined when regular users purchase their transponders), I'd be perfectly happy to have the 'ducts remain in place.

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Indeed. Its very easy for a single male who lives downtown and walks to his government job to hector everyone else about how green they should be.

And as you point out, they're quite happy to live off the back of others' evil carbon footprints. Whether its the truck driver who delivered their brie, the server who had to drive in to serve them their pinot gris etc.

If they really wanted to walk the talk they could go live off the grid in the Interior somewhere, raising organic goats.

I agree with the "green" hypocrisy (see my previous post), but it seems only fair to point out that there are lots of single people who live where I do downtown who can't afford brie or pinot gris (I'm one of them), and lots of families as well who aren't wealthy but somehow manage to make a go of it without a car and are quite happy in doing so (my neighbours).

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

I agree, and wish that, where possible, industrial, residential and commercial uses were better integrated. Granville Island is the best local example of this.



I'm not sure about this, but do think that there should at least be a toll on any express route into downtown for non-industrial, non-commercial and non-public services traffic. Many large cities have tolled express routes - Toronto, Paris, etc. In Vancouver's case, if toll rates on the viaducts were differentiated by use (which could be determined when regular users purchase their transponders), I'd be perfectly happy to have the 'ducts remain in place.

I love Granville Island as well, and i agree it is one of the best examples of true mix use. I also love it because it demonstrates how land under an elevated structure is not wasted and indeed can be used if there is a will, and indeed make a much more interesting urban area

I also agree that tolling the ducts or a new alternative express route downtown for non commercial, transit and emergency vehicles is a good idea as well.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Ah, so it's okay as long as it's not the road YOU'RE taking. That kind of attitude is exactly what you're accusing cyclists of...

Hey now, if you've got a big enough pair to you're welcome to ride on the general lanes in the viaducts and on Dunsmuir. I live within a block of the viaduct, frankly put I'm going to be taking all of the above routes with a few different modes. I've currently got a small car, motorcycle, commuting bike, dh mountain bike (read heavy and slow) and an electric skateboard as options for transportation right now. The car still works the best for many trips. On trips into downtown I generally use my motorcycle, skateboard or pedal bike, but on anything going through downtown or during bad weather its the car hands down.

You should also get off your high horse about being a cyclist, generally aggressive and preachy cyclists are a good chunk of the reason behind there being so much ill will towards cyclists and dedicated cycling infrastructure.

Also Porfiry, everything you do emits carbon. EVERYTHING. Do you buy imported goods? Here's your pollution. Do you live in a building which is made of concrete? There's your source for 7% of man made CO2 emissions! Do you use natural gas heat? Even hydroelectric power has a fairly large carbon foot print when you consider emissions from immersed areas. For all the noise pollution I you guys make I'd really like to know what kind of professional credentials to back up your green washing.

I'm a mining engineer, probably one of the heaviest carbon producing professions you can be in, despite this there's a genuinely decent effort on many projects to find economically feasible green solutions to meet peoples needs. Some mines are tapping geothermal energy as a legacy project, others are looking into using wind turbines instead diesel generators to supply power and environmental science is getting tonnes of money thrown at it right now.

The last thing you should be trying to do is keep people from doing anything though, the worst thing we can do is go cold turkey and stop ourselves from functioning whilst changes happen. A witch hunt on CO2 emissions at the expense of the economy and standards of living would do a lot more damage than you would do a lot more damage than you think.

[golog]

if the council wanted a bike lane, they shouldn't have tried to do it on the cheap. extending the viaduct 1-2m for a bike lane should be feasible (unlike Burrard where it would be a lot more complicated and costly)

they snuck it in during the Olympics closures.

a complete network of bike routes which raises the value of any individual bike route, I get that and Vision did campaign on that

the viaduct bike route was rushed through and not well considered
it's possible they wish to limit lanes into downtown Vancouver, but even then they are doing the wrong thing by trying to accomplish a policy goal without being direct and inviting undesired negative consequences

maybe it all has to do with demolishing the viaducts so that developers can build another node of condo towers. Meggs is the voice for both right? and there is no interest group more powerful than developers locally

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

..I'm not sure about this, but do think that there should at least be a toll on any express route into downtown for non-industrial, non-commercial and non-public services traffic. Many large cities have tolled express routes - Toronto, Paris, etc. In Vancouver's case, if toll rates on the viaducts were differentiated by use (which could be determined when regular users purchase their transponders), I'd be perfectly happy to have the 'ducts remain in place.

The problem I can see with this is the question "what constitutes an express route"? Are the viaducts an extension of the street grid necessitated by downtown's geography, as the Burrard, Granville and Cambie Street bridges are? Or are they a truncated highway? Granted they don't cross a body of water, but I'd argue Granville St bridge is more of an express route (especially now that the Dunsmuir Viaduct has been neutered).

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Also IanS, everything you do emits carbon. EVERYTHING.

Not sure why that's directed at me, but, yes, I understand that.

What I object to is Vision adopting a measure which likely increases such emissions and then touting it as a "green" measure.

[Alex Mackinnon]

I'd be in favour of a toll if it went all the way to boundary or the #1. A toll on the viaducts as is wouldn't do anything but divert people onto local streets. There needs to be some investment in there to make it worthwhile and genuinely efficient.

edit: Sorry about that Ian, I was reading Porfiry's comment as yours.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Also Porfiry, everything you do emits carbon. EVERYTHING.

Right, and I accept responsibility for it. Everyone in society is guilty, but very few are honest about it. I cannot stand for self-righteous luxury car owners who sit in traffic for a few minutes and think there's a "cabal" out to get them. Man up, grow up. There is no conspiracy, life in a dense city is one of compromise.

I spent a few minutes watching traffic flow at Dunsmuir and Beatty today, and it's pretty obvious to me that there's a signalling issue at that intersection. The traffic was backed up onto the viaduct with a ~2 signal wait, but on the downtown side of things the traffic was very light with perhaps a handful of cars at each light. There were entire blocks with no cars. It's pretty clear the bottleneck is the intersection, and that the capacity of the road is not being used.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Yup, I mentioned that in my detailed critique of the bike lane. The problem is that both lanes clog with turning traffic due to the amount of peds and for the most part never gets to accelerate to meet the green wave. The lights are programmed so that once the cars get moving they aren't supposed to stop, as is there's too many blockages to keep traffic moving at a consistent rate. As is a few cars get through, Citadel, then get stuck at Beatty, then get stuck behind turning vehicles when the light changes. No lanes generally remain clear for through traffic.

In order to remove the choke and keep the bike lane the light would be reprogrammed, a left turn lane could be built and Citadel Parade could be transformed into a 1 way unsignalized street. There's a fairly large sidewalk which could be trimmed to allow the ROW to fit a left turn, but this would likely encourage peds to encroach the bike path during Canucks game.

You can lash out against luxury vehicles all you want, but even an anemic economy car like my Golf will burn a fair chunk of fuel while idling for 10 to 15 minutes. For the benefits extracted from this project I wouldn't say it is so much of a compromise, but a compromised design; there's way to much of a negative impact to this project. Even if the Citadel/Beatty/Dunsmuir intersections got fixed there's still a few other major design issues with this project.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

The good old days... before the Dunsmuir bike lane. Sorry guys/gals. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a recreational cyclist. Nevertheless, a Main St./Dunsmuir viaduct/Burrard St. combo was always a 1 - 2 minute venture. But alas, the social Hollyhock agenda seems to have taken over.

Now who's gonna explain the extra GHG emissions as a result?

BTW, without a green 4-wheel machine, how ya gonna pick up your Saturday night date?

OK I will agree that by having you sit in traffic a bit longer and taking longer to go where you want. That yes you are increasing your total emissions output for that trip. Compared to if you could drive straight through without ever stopping.

At the same time though how many people may have given up driving downtown because the traffic has been forced to get worse. So while you may have more emissions. Someone else may have zeroed theirs.

There is also the fact that as soon as you open up the road to make it easier for the car. You will suddenly have more cars and thus more emissions.

[Yume-sama]

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Many people are choosing to shop out of Downtown (not that that is completely surprising considering there is nothing completely unique), with how increasingly difficult access to Downtown has become (real or perceived). They aren't just not going outside in their Landrovers, they are going elsewhere, and the only ones who suffer are the local economy (as is the case with nearly every piece of green legislature). Now, I'd almost believe the Canada Line has taken cars out of Downtown, but it seems to be far busier leaving Downtown than coming in, and the Richmond economy seem to have gotten the big benefit.

Frankly, I think it's more of a perceived problem than a REAL problem. But, we saw what happened with the HST

[hazel]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

I cannot stand for self-righteous luxury car owners who sit in traffic for a few minutes and think there's a "cabal" out to get them.

So then it's OK if it's not a luxury car? Comrade!

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Many people are choosing to shop out of Downtown (not that that is completely surprising considering there is nothing completely unique), with how increasingly difficult access to Downtown has become (real or perceived). They aren't just not going outside in their Landrovers, they are going elsewhere, and the only ones who suffer are the local economy (as is the case with nearly every piece of green legislature). Now, I'd almost believe the Canada Line has taken cars out of Downtown, but it seems to be far busier leaving Downtown than coming in, and the Richmond economy seem to have gotten the big benefit.

Frankly, I think it's more of a perceived problem than a REAL problem. But, we saw what happened with the HST

Yea I see this too, Robson st. stores aren't as full as they used to be, exception is the block inbetween thurlow and burrard.
Most people shopping in dt are doing so at Pacific Centre, mostly for H&M, Hollister, Apple store and Holt Renfrew. And those stores are the ones that don't have a location at Metrotown.

Originally Posted by hazel

So then it's OK if it's not a luxury car? Comrade!

Yeah, wouldn't an old cheap car pollute more than an expensive luxury car?

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by SpikePhanta

Yeah, wouldn't an old cheap car pollute more than an expensive luxury car?

Technically yes, but then we'd have a difficult time of trying to spin this in to a class warfare issue, too.

As evident by the "only rich people can afford cars" flawed argument waaaay back near the beginning of this thread, by our now disappeared resident cyclist and chief.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by hazel

So then it's OK if it's not a luxury car? Comrade!

Huh? It was a specific reference to whatnext, who pretends that he's under-privileged from behind the steering wheel of his BMW.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Huh? It was a specific reference to whatnext, who pretends that he's under-privileged from behind the steering wheel of his BMW.

Ah shucks, I'm touched you remember.

And I didn't claim to be under-privileged by the viaduct fiasco, I claimed to be inconvenienced. It may be as simple as you say, a change to the light programming might eliminate the unnecessary idling.

[SpikePhanta]

Geoff Meggs has a video up on his websites saying why he thinks the viaducts should go.

I'm about to watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqXRaAdgo44&feature=player_embedded