Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts? - Page 78

Alex Mackinnon · #**1541** Posted **Mar 15, 2011, 3:48 PM**

Well, we can always try to stack the audience.

Metro-One · #**1542** Posted **Mar 15, 2011, 10:41 PM**

Well I registered myself a seat, i encourage all of you on here to do the same. I would like to see many of you there, which would ensure a far more balanced audience as I am sure Geoff will stack the crowd with his supporters (seeing how it is his bias report spearheaded by him being discussed).

jlousa · #**1543** Posted **Mar 16, 2011, 1:46 AM**

I'll be there, I'm more curious to hear the spin then anything. I'm normally a big fan of Gordon Price, but I have a feeling this is one issue I won't agree with him on.

dreambrother808 · #**1544** Posted **Mar 16, 2011, 2:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

(seeing how it is his bias report spearheaded by him being discussed).

So you're saying it's a biased report even though it hasn't been released yet and therefore you haven't read it?

jlousa · #**1545** Posted **Mar 16, 2011, 2:20 AM**

I believe he means the rfp which commissioned the report was biased, leading to a report with an inclination for a predetermined result.

Metro-One · #**1546** Posted **Mar 16, 2011, 4:40 AM**

Exactly.

amor de cosmos · #**1547** Posted **Mar 29, 2011, 11:43 PM**

Quote:

I got a chance to speak with Dr. Kee Yeon Hwang, president of the Korea Transport Institute this Monday!

As you may know, he’s giving two talks this week about his work in Seoul: one on removing a major freeway to restore a downtown stream, and one on reforming Seoul’s bus system. (See this post for the talk details!)

Dr. Hwang talked with me about those projects and how they came about, plus what he’s up to now, which includes high-speed rail plans and elevated bike freeways in Korea. Read on for more!

http://buzzer.translink.ca/index.php/201...sident-of-the-korea-transport-institute/

Alex Mackinnon · #**1548** Posted **Apr 8, 2011, 4:13 AM**

So who went to this SFU thing and how did it go? I ended up getting stuck in Kamloops for work. My girlfriend went in proxy for me though.

jlousa · #**1549** Posted **Apr 8, 2011, 5:16 AM**

I wouldn't say it was a waste of 2hrs but it certainly wasn't productive. There was no support of keeping the viaducts and only support for removing part/half/all of them with most people speaking for just getting rid of them. The actual report was much more neutral then the speakers and I hope it carries hefty weight. To be honest I wasn't worried for the viaducts before, now I am.

whatnext · #**1550** Posted **Apr 8, 2011, 6:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

I wouldn't say it was a waste of 2hrs but it certainly wasn't productive. There was no support of keeping the viaducts and only support for removing part/half/all of them with most people speaking for just getting rid of them. The actual report was much more neutral then the speakers and I hope it carries hefty weight. To be honest I wasn't worried for the viaducts before, now I am.

One can always vote the bums out in November.

Incidentally who were most of these folks, Gordon Price acolytes? Or did Meggs stack the audience with his former Strathcona neighbours?

jlousa · #**1551** Posted **Apr 8, 2011, 6:19 AM**

There was Vancouver's lead engineer Peter Judd (surprising to me his lack of fondness for the viaducts, the PR guy for I think the Vancouver board of trade(might of been vancouver business assoc) he was open minded but very cautious about removing capacity, The guy behind the report conducted for the city (Harlow group ???) he was a data guy and his numbers showed that the other streets could coup w/o the viaducts but would have negative effects, his report suggested removing the georgia viaducts and keeping only the dunsimir one would be feasible with converting it to two way traffic. The other option he called a 20% reduction would terminate the viaducts at Main st and would cause the least negative consequences and his numbers seemed to show it would be easily doable. Larry Beasley was in favour of getting rid of them completely or terminating them and wrapping them around Rogers Arena and have them as a look out over the lower part.

Bing Thom was same as Larry and wanted to see them gone and some kind of Utopia built in it's place.

jlousa · #**1552** Posted **Apr 8, 2011, 6:24 AM**

Voted them out? Who is there to vote for though? I'm a traditional NPA supporter but heck there isn't an NPA to vote for right now, the ones that have announced Sean Bickerton and Bill McCleery scare me even more. If Vision could shake away Cope completely and shed Meggs I could almost see myself voting for them. Can't believe I just wrote that.

Millennium2002 · #**1553** Posted **Apr 8, 2011, 7:06 AM**

A single viaduct seems okay... although in terms of the budget it would be a bit of a nightmare... =S

Metro-One · #**1554** Posted **Apr 8, 2011, 7:20 AM**

I am very mad at myself for missing this meeting, I signed up and everything by was hit with 2 final exams tomorrow (plus a statistics final assignment). So instead I had to spend this evening in a study group

So rediculous, again, this is such a straw man tearing down the viaducts. it is all about image and not about substance.

Again, there is no real gain in density to be had with their removal.

They have been easily built around / under so far, creating interesting urban spaces (such as between the stadiums and spectrum and the skate park)

they also provide a fantastic cheap space to build a centrally located OMC for the proposed street car.

If the goal is to reduce traffic flow into downtown, they will be done by introducing the street car. That will take vehicle room away on Pacific and Hastings. Also, we have heard about the desire to reduce Hasting's speed limit to 30 in areas, along with other traffic calming. Does it not make sense to keep the ducts to handle this re-located traffic volume? Does it not make sense to reduce capacity and put in place traffic calming on the surface roads and directing traffic onto the ducts instead????????????

Again, I can not figure out their mentality.

Makes no sense to me at all, all they are going to do is cause streets such as Hastings to be even less pedestrian / cycling friendly, especially when even more room is taken away via the trams.

But its ok, lets tear them down so we can build yet another over priced Yaletown carbon copy where they once stood. Sounds great.

You do know that building condos beside the ducts could help create some cheeper housing (the floors near viaduct level) so some people with lower incomes can live closer to downtown without social assistance.

Oh well, Vancouver has only itself to blame in chasing a resort style mix use policy, helping create some of the highest real estate prices in the world. I know in Japan there are plenty of cheeper units beside / near the railway and highway elevated structures (away from stations of course) in the big cities near downtown, something good to have for those working in the service sector

Alex Mackinnon · #**1555** Posted **Apr 8, 2011, 7:35 AM**

... oh boy. I wish I could have seen this.

Stingray2004 · #**1556** Posted **Apr 8, 2011, 5:48 PM**

Firstly, the option to remove the Georgia St. viaduct is not possible as it's a component of the GVTA major road network.

More interesting would be the 'timeline' for any 'contemplated' viaduct removal options:

1. Terminate viaducts at Main St. - feasible in 5 years.

2. Eliminate Georgia viaduct - feasible in 10 - 15 years.

3. Eliminate both viaducts - feasible in 20+ years.

Again, this entire matter is an excercise in futility. IMHO, the viaducts ain't going anywhere.

Quote:

Dave Turner, the city's transportation consultant, laid out three possible scenarios for the viaducts: the 20-per-cent option, the 50-per-cent option and the 100-per-cent option.

In the 20-per-cent option, the viaducts would terminate at Main Street, where new inbound ramps would be built. This option would be feasible in about five years, Turner said.

In the 50-per-cent option, the Georgia viaduct would be eliminated and the Dunsmuir viaduct made into a two-way street. Heavily contingent on public transit investments, this option would be feasible in 10-15 years, Turner said.

The 100-per-cent option would see both viaducts removed, and the east ends of Georgia and Dunsmuir streets turned into cul-de-sacs.

Turner said commuters would be expected to reroute on to both major and smaller streets, causing significant traffic congestion and slowed public transit. This option would take more than 20 years to implement.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Forum+mulls+fate+viaducts/4580141/story.html#ixzz1IxES4Jhd

IanS · #**1557** Posted **Apr 8, 2011, 5:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Firstly, the option to remove the Georgia St. viaduct is not possible as it's a component of the GVTA major road network.

More interesting would be the 'timeline' for any 'contemplated' viaduct removal options:

1. Terminate viaducts at Main St. - feasible in 5 years.

2. Eliminate Georgia viaduct - feasible in 10 - 15 years.

3. Eliminate both viaducts - feasible in 20+ years.

Was there any discussion as to the benefits to be realized from taking any of these steps? I haven't seen the report, of course, but from the summary both here and in the newspaper, it seems like the best we can hope for from such action is to somehow minimize the damage caused by the removal.

I totally get the "anti car" mentality behind the proposal, but I assume that there must, at least, be some effort made to portray this as being beneficial to the City. Right?

Quote:

Again, this entire matter is an excercise in futility. IMHO, the viaducts ain't going anywhere.

I hope so.

WarrenC12 · #**1558** Posted **Apr 8, 2011, 6:01 PM**

^^^^^

Wow. So we've solved all the other pressing problems in the City, and there's such a budget surplus we can talk about spending millions to tear down infrastructure? I just don't get it.

Stingray2004 · #**1559** Posted **Apr 8, 2011, 6:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanS

... there must, at least, be some effort made to portray this as being beneficial to the City. Right?

Well according to Dave Turner, the city's transportation consultant, the entire removal of the viaducts would have a NEGATIVE impact:

Quote:

Turner said commuters would be expected to reroute on to both major and smaller streets, causing significant traffic congestion and slowed public transit.

Forgive me for being cheeky, but sounds like another 'Dumb and Dumber' moment at silly hall.

EastVanMark · #**1560** Posted **Apr 8, 2011, 8:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

Voted them out? Who is there to vote for though? I'm a traditional NPA supporter but heck there isn't an NPA to vote for right now, the ones that have announced Sean Bickerton and Bill McCleery scare me even more. If Vision could shake away Cope completely and shed Meggs I could almost see myself voting for them. Can't believe I just wrote that.

Exactly. There is nobody to vote for. You can hardly tell the candidates apart. In recent civic elections it's just a question of who is the least insane, not who is the best candidate.