Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts? - Page 83

aberdeen5698 · #**1641** Posted **Apr 16, 2011, 2:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cornholio

What is "logical" is to allow a efficient balance to develop, that means react to demand for bicycle lanes...

For well over the past 10 years car trips in Vancouver have been dropping and bike trips have been increasing (see :http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/stats/travelwork/index.htm). What the City is doing is exactly what you're suggesting...

xd_1771 · #**1642** Posted **Apr 16, 2011, 5:58 PM**

I meant what you would have to do to the surrounding areas farther away from the the main Malkin Connector area (i.e. 1st and Clark) in order to adjust for such a major shift in traffic movement.

spitandsnot · #**1643** Posted **Apr 16, 2011, 7:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cornholio

How about the fact that bicycles are responsible for more pollution then vehicles.

They are a inefficient use of our most important resource, people, and as such produce waste, and all waste ends up resulting in pollution.

*Keep in mind im talking about forced bicycle use as a result of handicapping more efficient transportation choices, such as driving. What is "logical" is to allow a efficient balance to develop, that means react to demand for bicycle lanes as a result of opportunities created by congestion due to the peaking of efficiency of other transportation choices. What is retarded, and shameful that apparently intelligent people support it, is handicap more efficient transportation choices in order to create a false demand for a less efficient choice, bicycles.

we're talking about different things here.

i was referring to actual greenhouse gas emissions, not metaphorical pollution. i am aware that for a lot of people, a car is going to get them to where they're going faster than a bike will... anyways, i never said that the bike lanes were implemented well, and i don't think they are. but driving is a bigger handicap than cycling to its own efficiency, because most drivers are the sole occupants in their cars. they waste a huge amount of road space.

cornholio · #**1644** Posted **Apr 16, 2011, 8:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

For well over the past 10 years car trips in Vancouver have been dropping and bike trips have been increasing (see :http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/stats/travelwork/index.htm). What the City is doing is exactly what you're suggesting...

My belief has always been that this trend is a direct cause of population growth outstripping job growth on the downtown peninsula.

I think we can all agree that the bike lanes are good, its the implementation by the clowns at city hall that is not, its obvious they try to inflict as much hardship on drivers as possible.

cornholio · #**1645** Posted **Apr 16, 2011, 8:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spitandsnot

we're talking about different things here.

i was referring to actual greenhouse gas emissions, not metaphorical pollution. i am aware that for a lot of people, a car is going to get them to where they're going faster than a bike will... anyways, i never said that the bike lanes were implemented well, and i don't think they are. but driving is a bigger handicap than cycling to its own efficiency, because most drivers are the sole occupants in their cars. they waste a huge amount of road space.

I was also referring to actual green house gasses, not some metaphorical gas emissions.

Cars most definitely are not a handicap to their own efficiency, they are simply the most efficient means of transportation, they allow our local, regional and global economies to be extremely flexible and mobile, and as a result efficient.

With a car I can go at any time of the day all the time to any point within a 50km radios in less than two hours. Cycling is not a competing form of transportation, it can only compete on short specific trips within a specific area where congestion allows the opportunity for it to be viable(for some trips and for some people).

cornholio · #**1646** Posted **Apr 16, 2011, 8:36 PM**

Oh and I still cant believe they are even studying the removal of the viaducts. This is a criminal waste of our money and people like Meggs should be held accountable and made to pay for this.

I cant believe this has even gone this far.

trofirhen · #**1647** Posted **Apr 16, 2011, 9:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cornholio

Oh and I still cant believe they are even studying the removal of the viaducts. This is a criminal waste of our money and people like Meggs should be held accountable and made to pay for this.

I cant believe this has even gone this far.

It's also a waste of time and mental energy, as anyone with half a brain would know the viaducts should stay and be more integrated into the infrastructure! IMHO, of course.

BCPhil · #**1648** Posted **Apr 16, 2011, 10:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by xd_1771

If the Malkin Connector is built and treated as the new connector to the viaduct, two things would most definitely have to happen:
1. First Avenue WB gets a right turn lane to Clark NB, it would be required to support the traffic movement change
2. A much longer left turn lane on Clark SB.

I think that is one key issue with the Malkin Connector, the amount of improvements you would also have to do in a lot of other places in order to properly support it. There could potentially be some NIMBY issues.

I don't think you would have to do that necessarily. But the properties on the East side of Clark at 1st are vacant, so there would be some room to reconfigure the intersection if that is required.

But I think the Malkin connector would shift travel patterns across Vancouver, not just between Clark and downtown.

Right now, many drivers take 1st into downtown because it is fast, and a straight shot to Main Street where they turn right, then left onto the Viaducts. It minimizes turns, thus maximizing speed.

With the Malkin connector, 1st isn't necessarily the best choice for access to the Viaducts, it puts it on equal footing with other roads. Instead, I think traffic would shift to Granview. With HOV lanes, and better access to and from #1 thanks to Gateway project, Granview will be the primary access point to the city, shifting focus from 1st. From Granview, you have direct access Clark. From there, you have a multitude of choices. From Clark, you have access to (stay) on Granview (towards Cambie or Granville Bridge), or Lougheed, or Great Northern Way, or Terminal, or the Malkin connector. You can even travel down to Hastings or Powell.

Most of the length of Clark is industrial, and the road is pretty wide. It would be wise IMO to shift what currently happens on Main street over to Clark, as Main is being gentrified. It will improve the pedestrian landscape of that growing area (making room for hopeful transit expansion and cycling facilities), while putting vehicle movements onto a primarily industrial stretch of road.

Shifting the traffic focus from Main to Clark would be good for the city of Vancouver and improve the livability of many areas of the downtown core, but we would need the viaducts to make that possible.

s211 · #**1649** Posted **Apr 16, 2011, 10:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cornholio

Oh and I still cant believe they are even studying the removal of the viaducts. This is a criminal waste of our money and people like Meggs should be held accountable and made to pay for this.

I cant believe this has even gone this far.

All I can say is get out and vote. Either that or weapon up for the revolution.

xd_1771 · #**1650** Posted **Apr 16, 2011, 11:30 PM**

It definitely seems that a lot of traffic is going to shift to Grandview considering how the new Highway 1 is being configured. Probably a decent break for 1st Ave then and it spreads & segregates the traffic a bit more. However, you may then have to invest a bit more in turning Grandview/E 12th into a proper primary route into Vancouver (i.e. proper clearance for trucks or tall vehicles by trimming the trees a bit more)

Though Clark is already an important connector as it is, Clark between 12th and Malkin does seem fine, though intersections between those two points would have to be upgraded to separate left turn lanes where there aren't any (or centre turn lane perhaps? We don't see those that much except in the Metro)

I don't see what's wrong with the viaducts, it's not like the Alaskan Way where you look at it and the first thing that comes to your mind is eyesore... I think the viaducts go in at least fine with the current environment (i.e. not distracting), and we have an opportunity to make it look even better.

Concerning the Malkin connector, since it'd form a more direct route into downtown and result in a more streamlined amount of traffic pouring into the viaducts... would it be necessary to bring 3 lanes back to the Dunsmuir Viaduct? (with two lanes coming in from the east/Malkin) - that merge that is currently in place doesn't have any problem handling Prior St traffic but with the Malkin could become somewhat more of a bottleneck. If the viaduct was built for 3 lanes then why not use them? Unless you want to reserve space for a bike lane or pedestrian walkway but I don't see that happening when 1. there is a narrow sidewalk on the viaduct already and 2. it would probably be much more practical to use adjacent at-grade options.

whatnext · #**1651** Posted **Apr 17, 2011, 1:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

For well over the past 10 years car trips in Vancouver have been dropping and bike trips have been increasing (see :http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/stats/travelwork/index.htm). What the City is doing is exactly what you're suggesting...

Wasn't today (Sat) a beautiful day? The sun was shining, and despite a breeze the thermometer read 11 C. Having to drop something off downtown after being at Home Depot, I decided to go over the viaduct and then through downtown on Dunsmuir, then out along Burrard St for an app't in Kits. Downtown was thronged with shoppers enjoying the good weather.

Oh, and during that trip I saw a grand total of 6 bikes using the viaduct and bike lanes.

Just sayin'...

dreambrother808 · #**1652** Posted **Apr 17, 2011, 1:52 AM**

Thanks once again for your purely anecdotal evidence.

dreambrother808 · #**1653** Posted **Apr 17, 2011, 1:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

All I can say is get out and vote. Either that or weapon up for the revolution.

Are you the Canadian version of a Tea Party member?

WarrenC12 · #**1654** Posted **Apr 17, 2011, 2:27 AM**

My anecdotal evidence today: saw just as many bikes on the Hornby lanes as cars this afternoon (around a dozen each). Clearly this means every street should have bike lanes...

aberdeen5698 · #**1655** Posted **Apr 17, 2011, 3:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

Oh, and during that trip I saw a grand total of 6 bikes using the viaduct and bike lanes.

What time did you go? I went over the viaduct around 10:30 to join the Cherry Blossom bike ride starting out from Stanley Park, and I can tell you that there were a TON of bikes then...

Metro-One · #**1656** Posted **Apr 17, 2011, 4:03 AM**

ugh, again people, why does this thread have to become a bike vs. car thread?

Please stop that.

BCPhil · #**1657** Posted **Apr 17, 2011, 11:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

What time did you go? I went over the viaduct around 10:30 to join the Cherry Blossom bike ride starting out from Stanley Park, and I can tell you that there were a TON of bikes then...

Wait... you were proceeding downtown to a downtown based major bike riding event.... AND there were other bikes? Stop the presses!

Jebby · #**1658** Posted **Apr 17, 2011, 3:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

ugh, again people, why does this thread have to become a bike vs. car thread?

Please stop that.

Because we're in the Internet and there's an unwritten rule against agreeing in anything.

aberdeen5698 · #**1659** Posted **Apr 17, 2011, 5:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Wait... you were proceeding downtown to a downtown based major bike riding event.... AND there were other bikes? Stop the presses!

My point was that just because someone doesn't happen to see a lot of bikes at a particular time doesn't mean the lane doesn't get a lot of good use.

Canadian Mind · #**1660** Posted **Apr 17, 2011, 7:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

My point was that just because someone doesn't happen to see a lot of bikes at a particular time doesn't mean the lane doesn't get a lot of good use.

You equate specific riding events as good use? They are the exception, not the norm.

If you had hundreds or thousands of cyclists using the bike lanes on the viaducts, you'd have a case. Hell, if the daily ridership over the viaducts was 1000+ I'd be in support of maintaining bike lanes, and would use that as another reason to keep the viaducts.

Even in that case, I don't think reducing viaduct car-carrying capacity in order to support a pair of bike lanes is the best idea. Rather, could an outrigger system be hung off the side of the viaducts to keep the cyclists safely away from and not interfering with vehicular traffic?