Quote:
Originally Posted by Zassk
It disturbs me that the Malkin Connector won't line up with an east-west artery on the other side of Clark Dr.
But it will still be better than having all of that traffic on Prior and Venables. And it will let the city close the rail crossing on Venables, as they have wanted to do for a long time.
The Malkin Connector will be a huge win for Strathcona and Chinatown. And it requires the viaducts.
|
I don't think that is a major issue. What this does it will do though, is shift the burden of traffic jockying from Main to Clark. Clark will become the downtown funnel road. And Clark, with a few extra turn lanes, can handle it much better than Main can.
Right now, most traffic bound for the Viaducts comes from Main via Terminal, which is an amalgamation of traffic from Knight, Granview, Lougheed, and 1st. By putting in the Malkin connector, it allows a lot of traffic, especially traffic from Granview, Lougheed and Knight to skip the Terminal-> Main jig and go directly onto the Malking Connector and the Viaducts. While it might seem like a juke for people from 1st, that juke is made by all traffic not on 1st anyway. Terminal will still be used for access to Pacific/Expo, but it will lose the viaduct bound traffic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext
Judging by the comments in the recent Vancouver 125 supplements coming from the residents of those neighbourhoods about how they fought the freeway and won, don't expect them to welcome road construction of any kind.
|
All of the construction will be on industrial lands, and reduce traffic through their neighborhood. 40 years ago they were against basically a block width of home from being removed and becoming a trench for a freeway, cutting the neighborhood in half and introducing high speed noisy vehiclues to the mix.
The Malkin Connector is the opposite of that. It is still just an arterial road, won't remove any residential homes, and will restore some tranquility to the area that is currently a mess on Prior due to all the through traffic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradigm4
The whole argument that the viaducts are part of the MRN is moot. TransLink has no clout to veto Vancouver's choice to remove or modify the viaducts. Would they be consulted? Absolutely, but consider the facts:
1. Traffic is already low downtown and decreasing
2. Most viaduct traffic is local from East Van and Burnaby
3. There's additional capacity on other routes that could absorb existing traffic from the viaducts
If removing or modifying them would cause a regional transportation crisis, TransLink would have an argument, but it would. Therefore, TransLink has virtually no reason to deny supporting Vancouver, whatever decision it makes.
|
Why not look at if from the other side?
This is the problem I have with the tear down the viaducts approach. The argument presented to the public is "Tear them down" vs. the status quo. Leave this infrastructure there getting less and less used, or put the traffic on the roads now.
Why not juxtapose tearing down the viaducts with the opposite plan, a plan where you make them better?
Why not try to get even more traffic off the other roads downtown and onto the viaducts?
One of the big problems I see when I'm on E Hastings is that everyone there on the road is passing through. People are speeding, honking and swerving around traffic. All the while people of the neighborhood are just wandering across the street. It's an unpleasant nightmare that creates a hostile streetscape that average people try to avoid. The reason it is so easy for the street to get so bad is that the road is just access to downtown, there is no concern for the commercial activity of Hastings at all. Why not use the Viaducts to make Hastings better, instead of dumping more through drivers onto it?
The other problem with moving traffic off the Viaducts and onto the other roads is the assumption that they can handle it. Well, yes, if nothing EVER changes, yes, Hastings, Cordova, Expo, and Pacific can handle the traffic. By why would you want to set up a road system where you can never change that?
By keeping the viaducts, it allows you to change the streetscapes for the better. Streetcar/LRT ROW, HOV or Bus lanes, and more bike lanes, can be added to these other roads. Without the viaducts and extra traffic on the roads, it might be hard to set up the Vancouver Street car, as plans are for it to be on all those roads. The less traffic on these roads, the better the trains can operate without being interfered with by traffic jams.
I would actually say the Main street access should be REDUCED to the Viaducts. With the Malkin Connector, most traffic should be getting onto the Viaducts from Clarke. Access from Main Street can be reduced to a single left turn lane, and less traffic would be coming off it onto Main. This would improve the feeling of the street more than removing the viaducts. The problem I have with walking on Main are the — drivers who honk, run the lights, and almost run you over as you cross the access to the Viaducts. You reduce traffic at that point, and the area gets less congested, and more pleasant. And you also improve the safety and efficiency of the bike lane access. Heck, make it 2 lanes off the Prior access, remove the merging, and the Main street access, make it a yield. With the Malkin connector, crossing under the viaducts can be a much more pleasant experience with the reduction in turning movement and general traffic that would be a result. As well, the corners of Main and Terminal and Quebec would see a lot less traffic, improving the pedestrian environment of the entire area.
Why is it always remove the viaducts or let everything stay the same? Why not put that option up against using the viaducts as a strategy to mitigate downtown traffic and implement traffic calming techniques on other roads to improve the pedestrian, cyclist and transit environment?
Prev
Linear Mode
