Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts? - Page 90

racc · #**1781** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 3:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

Oh wow it gets better.

At the same meeting Council is recommending that Hastings be reduced to 30km/hr from Jackson until Abbott.
Good to see it noted in the report that although one of VPD's top goals is the reduction of traffic fatalities in the city, they are not endorsing this proposal.

Just want to clarify I'm car-free and I still think this is insane.

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that pedestrian fatalities rise dramatically in collisions with motor vehicles at speeds over 30km/h. http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc276.pdf It is simply not responsible to have speeds higher than that in areas where there are pedestrians around. To suggest otherwise is arguing against the laws of physics.

LeftCoaster · #**1782** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 3:33 PM**

So you think we should reduce the speed of every road which isnt a limited access freeway to less than 30km/h??

That's quite possible the dumbest suggestion ive ever seen on this board, perhaps in the entire time I've been a member.

Suggesting that isnt breaking the law of physics but is certainly shattering the laws of common sense.

LeftCoaster · #**1783** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 3:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by racc

What bafflegab. It is pretty obvious that the Viaducts occupy a significant amount of land. If the Viaducts were torn down, the city could sell this land and it could then be rezoned providing much more density in the area.

How is that bafflegab? The only jargonistic term he used was FSR, which I'm prettysure everyone on this fourm is familiar with.

And I think you need to re-read his post. It is the entire area, not the individual plots which are subject to this FSR. As of current zoning the area can hit its required denisty with the existing plots, razing the viaducts would only result in the same amount of people allowed but over more plots of land. Essentially more buildings at less density.

whatnext · #**1784** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 3:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by racc

What bafflegab. It is pretty obvious that the Viaducts occupy a significant amount of land. If the Viaducts were torn down, the city could sell this land and it could then be rezoned providing much more density in the area.

I suspect most of us would take jlousa's well-reasoned "bafflegab" over VACC's blind car-hating rhetoric anytime. BTW, I'm surprised you're not plumping your vehicle-bashing public meetings this month.

racc · #**1785** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 3:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

So you think we should reduce the speed of every road which isnt a limited access freeway to less than 30km/h??

That's quite possible the dumbest suggestion ive ever seen on this board, perhaps in the entire time I've been a member.

Suggesting that isnt breaking the law of physics but is certainly shattering the laws of common sense.

What is dumb about saving lives, decreasing injuries and reducing collisions. By reducing collisions, traffic delays are reduced and people might actually get where they want to go faster on the average.

If you actually really think about it, going fast actually makes no sense at all.

racc · #**1786** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 3:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

How is that bafflegab? The only jargonistic term he used was FSR, which I'm prettysure everyone on this fourm is familiar with.

And I think you need to re-read his post. It is the entire area, not the individual plots which are subject to this FSR. As of current zoning the area can hit its required denisty with the existing plots, razing the viaducts would only result in the same amount of people allowed but over more plots of land. Essentially more buildings at less density.

It is pretty obvious that rezoning could and would allow more buildings to be built and increase the FSR of the area. Otherwise, the result would be the taking of density away from current landowners. I understand that people like the Viaducts and that is fine just please stop using such nonsensical arguments in favour of them.

racc · #**1787** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 3:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

How is that bafflegab? The only jargonistic term he used was FSR, which I'm prettysure everyone on this fourm is familiar with.

And I think you need to re-read his post. It is the entire area, not the individual plots which are subject to this FSR. As of current zoning the area can hit its required denisty with the existing plots, razing the viaducts would only result in the same amount of people allowed but over more plots of land. Essentially more buildings at less density.

Then it would be pretty safe to assume that the FSR of the area would be increased.

LeftCoaster · #**1788** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 3:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by racc

Then it would be pretty safe to assume that the FSR of the area would be increased.

Why? The amount of people allowed in an area is based on the size of the area not the amount of developable plots.

LeftCoaster · #**1789** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 3:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by racc

What is dumb about saving lives, decreasing injuries and reducing collisions. By reducing collisions, traffic delays are reduced and people might actually get where they want to go faster on the average.

If you actually really think about it, going fast actually makes no sense at all.

Why doesn't everyone just wear helmets and hockey pads everywhere they walk so that we reduce injuries and save lives? im sure we can prove that it would result in a net benefit to public health.

Oh ya I know why, because it is absolutely rediculious and impractical....

I dont even own a car and I think this is one of the dumbest suggestions I have ever heard.

racc · #**1790** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 4:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

Wow, a whole weeks notice. Typical Vision Vancouver m.o., hold it in the middle of the summer and barely allow time for sufficient public input. Now we just need Andrea Reimer to send out a tweet to stuff it with their acolytes and the circle will be complete.

Typical overreaction again. If you bothered to actually look at what is actually being recommended in the report, you would know that public consultation is being planned as part of the transportation plan.

The report is at: http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20110726/documents/ttra2.pdf

DKaz · #**1791** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 4:23 PM**

I think the only way tearing down the Viaducts while improving traffic is to have a direct no turns movement between Terminal Ave to Dunsmuir and from Georgia. I am going to draft up a concept.

It shouldn't be very hard to implement.

GMasterAres · #**1792** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 4:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by racc

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that pedestrian fatalities rise dramatically in collisions with motor vehicles at speeds over 30km/h. http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc276.pdf It is simply not responsible to have speeds higher than that in areas where there are pedestrians around. To suggest otherwise is arguing against the laws of physics.

I agree with you that more pedestrian FATALITIES will technically happen as speeds go up (physics) but is that the fault of the motorist? The VPD say straight out statistically the bulk of pedestrians get HIT because of their own stupidity. So while reducing the speed may make those HITs less fatal, it won't reduce the amount of people HIT.

I also don't see why we need to punish drivers yet again for stupid people. I actually look at it the opposite. I like when pedestrian fatalities rise because it means Darwin is winning again and our population gene pool is just 1 person cleaner. There isn't a time I'm downtown where a bus doesn't have to slam on the brakes and honk its horn because some idiot or several idiots decided to start crossing on a red light or in the middle of a block without looking. I actually feel the opposite happens.

The higher the speed of traffic, the less likely a pedestrian is going to be stupid and run out into traffic. If everyone was driving 15 km/hr people would be walking where ever they want because the consequences would be really low. If everyone is traveling 80 km/hr do you think people would be just jumping out at red lights? Or do you think most people would "wow 🞵🞵🞵🞵 people drive fast I better REALLY LOOK before I step off the curb."

Obviously there is a balance of safety for cars too so 50 km/hr in downtown Vancouver makes sense. But 30 on hastings? 50 on Oak Street? It's ridiculous. Even 60 on stretches of KGB are stupid imo.

GMasterAres · #**1793** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 4:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by racc

What is dumb about saving lives, decreasing injuries and reducing collisions. By reducing collisions, traffic delays are reduced and people might actually get where they want to go faster on the average.

If you actually really think about it, going fast actually makes no sense at all.

How does it reduce collisions? The Police said clearly the bulk of pedestrian hits are a result of the pedestrians themselves walking out or not paying attention, not the motorists. As car speed reduces pedestrians get more ballsy and it is more likely they will cross wherever and whenever they feel like it. I'd argue that 30 km/hr would actually increase the pedestrian collision rate.

It may and probably would reduce the FATALITY rate but not a chance the collision rate. And again it has been stated before that the average speed is already probably around 30km/hr so you're not actually changing anything other than punishing drivers again.

DKaz · #**1794** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 4:32 PM**

I think 40km/h is more reasonable.

Teaser...

hollywoodnorth · #**1795** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 4:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

And, as usual, Meggs his talking out his *ss. Saying the viaducts cut Chinatown off from the downtown core shows a laughably poor grasp of geography.

wow Geoff really has no brain ... what a douche. I just blasted him by emailing mayor and council.

no matter what we need to mobilize and keep this tool from being reelected in the fall. he needs to return to his job at mc donalds serving fries ... something he can grasp with ease.

hollywoodnorth · #**1796** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 4:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKaz

I think 40km/h is more reasonable.

Teaser...

your kidding right?

you want to more or less turn the area into the INDY again?

I live in the area ... we need a REDUCTION in speed .... not an increase.

also what about the street car? how will it fare in your "quebec street race track"?

DKaz · #**1797** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 4:49 PM**

If anything there is a reduction in lanes if you get rid of the viaduct. No lanes will be added and the added traffic should reduce the average travelling speed. A lot of those lines are just construction lines, the finish product will be a lot nicer.

The reconfiguration will be fully compatible with the proposed street car and existing bike lanes. All at grade intersections will remain.

WarrenC12 · #**1798** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 5:31 PM**

Just wondering what the economic impact would be of slowing traffic down... time is money after all. Probably under $100m though... Vancouver taxpayers can eat the tax losses from that...

DKaz · #**1799** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 5:40 PM**

It's still going to be quicker than turning from Terminal Ave onto Main St. then Main St. onto the viaduct. The afternoon commute away from downtown is even worse. Think about it. Why go through all those turns when you can head directly from Georgia onto Terminal?

usog · #**1800** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 6:11 PM**

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/256449--vancouver-without-viaducts-up-for-debate
Hilarious comments over at news1130.