Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[s211]

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.

"going fast" ???????

Under your line of reasoning, anything faster than a turtle "makes no sense".

Car-haters gonna car-hate, I suppose. can't change that law of physics, either.

[whatnext]

And I'm sure racc supports limiting bicycles to a 30 km/h speed limit...

As we saw with the elderly man struck by a cyclist on Main, bikes can kill as surely as cars.

[DKaz]

Good cyclists can average 40km/h on straights. It puzzles me why we're limiting bike routes to 30km/h when clearly some cyclists are capable of getting a speeding ticket on these routes.

[cornholio]

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.

First you need to compare the statistics by looking at kilometers traveled...slower speed = lower capacity = more kilometers traveled to move X amount of people/goods over from point A to B. Obviously your biased statistics dont take the bigger picture into account, infact its very possible that reduced speeds on Hastings could contribute to increased fatalities and injuries in the city as a whole(potential unintended results). Here is a word for you, balance.

Second of all I am living in Sao Paulo now, been here only 2 weeks so far but if you were here you would think the streets would be littered with bodies, yet their not because people pay attention instead of walking around in a daze and darting across streets without thinking. Like others have said the lower the consequences the ballsier the people, be it pedestrians or drivers.

[Canadian Mind]

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.

What he's talking about is that the land underneath the viaducts is already calculated into the FSR of the adjacent properties.

[DKaz]

Some progress.



Blue = streetcar.
Green = bike lanes (Adanac-Dunsmuir-Seawall)

[WBC]

Dkaz, is that a preview of things to come - of the actual proposed solution?

[WBC]

Update from Vancouver Sun essentially saying that Viaducts are going to turn into long term (10-15 years) issue tied to the issue of what to do with False Creek flats...Kind of makes sense. So everybody can cool it. Megs is not dynamiting the viaducts any time soon... ;-)

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/s...uver+viaducts+removed/5140418/story.html

[p78hub]

I would rather have them stay for the duration of their remaining lifespan. They're only an issue right now because Meggsy wants them to be an issue, and judging from the 🞵🞵🞵🞵 that comes out of his mouth, his opinion should mean nothing. It's a 10-15 year "issue", but at least nothing will happen while Robertson and co. are in power.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

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...

City Hall has shown that they care little for pesky things like "economic impact" but instead worries more about "important" things like growing wheat in your front yard. Its like a group of 7 year olds run the city.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

City Hall has shown that they care little for pesky things like "economic impact" but instead worries more about "important" things like growing wheat in your front yard. Its like a group of 7 year olds run the city.

not for much longer ... election time is coming up!

[s211]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

not for much longer ... election time is coming up!

I wish I had your faith in a regime change. I really do.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Some progress.

Blue = streetcar.
Green = bike lanes (Adanac-Dunsmuir-Seawall)

Prepare for the attack of the CityGate Residents Association...

[DKaz]

F**k'n CityGate. I still remember when I answered some Japanese friends why the Skytrain goes so slow in that stretch. "RIARII!!! Such thing does not happen in Japan"

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

City Hall has shown that they care little for pesky things like "economic impact" but instead worries more about "important" things like growing wheat in your front yard. Its like a group of 7 year olds run the city.

7-year-olds care about growing wheat?

Remember, folks. There is long-term economic impact and short-term.

Short-term economic impact: Canada Line Construction
Long-term economic impact: Canada Line.

Personally, I feel the bike lanes are part of a long-term goal to make the city a better place. Many are all too quick to search out short-time negative impacts.

We shouldn't ignore short-term positive ones such as the little "appreciable" increase in congestion. If we've taken away 33% to 50% of roadspace off a road without a lot of impact in traffic, then we are using transportation lanes more efficiently and we're creating a downtown on a more human scale.

Some people say bike lanes are different from sidewalks because not everyone has a bike... any anyone can walk.

If that's the case (and I agree), then sidewalks really should be the priority. However, we ALL know that the likelihood of taking away a lane and giving it to pedestrians is pretty low.

So, for no other reason than the idea that we've more or less successfully removed lanes from downtown without a massive difference is a good thing that we're using what we have more efficiently. The Bike lanes are just a bonus.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

So, for no other reason than the idea that we've more or less successfully removed lanes from downtown without a massive difference is a good thing that we're using what we have more efficiently. The Bike lanes are just a bonus.

Depends on what your definition of "successfully" and "massive difference" is. If measured by actual measurable dollars and cents any loss is failure. However, if more long term, factless, baseless, pie-in-the-sky positive economic projections are used, then I guess its a rip roaring success. Kinda the way Geoff Meggs used the Olympics as "proof" the city doesn't need the viaducts.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by DKaz

F**k'n CityGate. I still remember when I answered some Japanese friends why the Skytrain goes so slow in that stretch. "RIARII!!! Such thing does not happen in Japan"

That's not entirely true. Japan has MUCH stricter guidelines when it comes to noise and property owners hold a LOT of sway. For many public works projects, there is a LOT of monetary compensation thrown around. THAT'S how things get done in Japan.

Just look at Narita Airport. There are still land holdouts there among the runways at Tokyo's main international airport. (take a look)

Why do you think they built bullet trains in viaducts over people's land?

Where is there still not (and probably never will be) a bullet train to Narita Airport?

Why is the new Mag-Lev between Tokyo and Nagoya (and eventually Osaka) going to be built mostly in a tunnel?

Why is the newest Bullet Train, the Fastech360, limited to 320km/h?

Why do they build major infrastructure in the middle of the ocean on reclaimed land... like Kansai International Airport (The one built on reclaimed land). Even then, lots of money was paid to fishermen.

Sure, part of it has to do with the lack of availability of flat land but also, land owners have a lot of say.

Highways that go near urban areas are built in viaducts and have extensive walls to keep in the traffic noise.

The trains in Japan have some of the strictest noise pollution laws in the world. The shape of the trains are purpose built to reduce noise due to air-resistance.

If Vancouver was in Japan... the track around city gate would likely have sound walls built to keep the train running quickly.

So, while saying "such a thing doesn't happen in Japan" is partly true... it's because money and other compensatory infrastructure (like sound barriers) are thrown at the problem to make it go away.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Depends on what your definition of "successfully" and "massive difference" is. If measured by actual measurable dollars and cents any loss is failure. However, if more long term, factless, baseless, pie-in-the-sky positive economic projections are used, then I guess its a rip roaring success. Kinda the way Geoff Meggs used the Olympics as "proof" the city doesn't need the viaducts.

Using that logic, any investment that results in a short-term loss is a failure as well.

The definition I use is are any losses that may be incurred
A) legitimately caused by the change?
B) tolerable?

I don't know about (A) but I think that it seems to be, at the moment, tolerable. The fact that we're not seeing wholesale collapse of businesses prove that the worst fears people had did not materialize.

Besides, can one really blame 100% of a change in business on such a change? Every year, things change. I just don't think it's as simple as comparing a quarterly number without further details. Otherwise, any business that had an increase of sales (not due to the bike lanes) could be used to prove that the bike lanes are good for the economy. Of course, people against the bike lanes would, rightly so, ask for further justification for this "claim". It's a two way street (or a bi-directional bike lane if you prefer) and although I have no personal use for the bike lanes, I will reserve judgment.

I say innocent until proven guilty, not the reverse... and I just have yet to see conclusive evidence that bike lanes have strongly affected business... either positively or negatively.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Using that logic, any investment that results in a short-term loss is a failure as well.

The definition I use is are any losses that may be incurred
A) legitimately caused by the change?
B) tolerable?

I don't know about (A) but I think that it seems to be, at the moment, tolerable. The fact that we're not seeing wholesale collapse of businesses prove that the worst fears people had did not materialize.

Besides, can one really blame 100% of a change in business on such a change? Every year, things change. I just don't think it's as simple as comparing a quarterly number without further details. Otherwise, any business that had an increase of sales (not due to the bike lanes) could be used to prove that the bike lanes are good for the economy. Of course, people against the bike lanes would, rightly so, ask for further justification for this "claim". It's a two way street (or a bi-directional bike lane if you prefer) and although I have no personal use for the bike lanes, I will reserve judgment.

I say innocent until proven guilty, not the reverse... and I just have yet to see conclusive evidence that bike lanes have strongly affected business... either positively or negatively.

Yes, while true that long-term affects are yet to be evaluated simply because not enough time has passed to be able to fully judge them, to claim that the changes have been "tolerable" once again falls under the category of what "tolerable" is. I will assure you the businesses along those streets find them anything but. Also, it seems hypocritical to one one hand say its too early to jump to a conclusions about long term economic impacts, but yet quick to say that because we haven't seen the immediate collapse of businesses in the area, everything is fine. Also, while also true that business can be affected by a whole host of reasons, the fact that a business such as Tim Horton's (located at the epicenter of the bike lanes) have reported a $40,000 monthly revenue drop seems only to point to only one suspect. As for business that increases due to the lanes, if said businesses are not bike related, the chances of business going up is about slim and none (with slim being seen leaving town)

[Metro-One]

When did this become a bike lane debate??????????

FYI I have no problem with the bike lanes purposely (although i would have altered their design a little if it was up to me)

And that is a reason why I support keeping the ducts, because they will be an asset in reducing surface traffic lanes into downtown (such as on Hastings, Expo, Water, etc...) because the traffic displaced from those streets being downsized in motor vehicle capacity thats still choose / require to drive downtown can do so on the ducts...