Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

True re:olympic trends. Look longer term.

But the longer term trend is interesting: car traffic to downtown in general has remained stable or has decreased in the past 20 years. Truck traffic on the viaducts have remained stable since 1996, and heavy truck traffic has decreased on the viaducts since the 1990s.

That may be right. As I recall, the City instructed Halcrow to proceed on the assumption that traffic would decrease going forward. That might also explain Halcrow's 15+ year timeline for removal of the viaducts, I suppose.

[s211]

Originally Posted by IanS

Does anyone really believe that traffic patterns during the Olympics are representative of traffic patterns in Vancouver generally?

Visionistas do, but only because they think it supports their cause.

[jlousa]

Originally Posted by IanS

That may be right. As I recall, the City instructed Halcrow to proceed on the assumption that traffic would decrease going forward. That might also explain Halcrow's 15+ year timeline for removal of the viaducts, I suppose.

I remember reading that assumption and pointing it out at the time. Traffic can very well continue along the recent trend of decreasing but I felt and still feel that it was dangerous to use such an assumption in commissioning a report. They would've been better served in using 3 scenarios, one with increases, one status quo and one with decreasing traffic. My understanding is although traffic into the core has decreased traffic out of the core has been increasing and is expected to continue doing so. Looking at the total traffic numbers it appears the decreases have really leveled off over the last few years after some initial sizeable reductions.

I've been to both of the open houses and the only councillor I've seen has been Meggs, I would think that the other councillors NPA and Green included would take some time and head to one of them to see what citizens are saying on this important civic matter, instead of only relying on only staff's or Megg's feedback.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I remember reading that assumption and pointing it out at the time. Traffic can very well continue along the recent trend of decreasing but I felt and still feel that it was dangerous to use such an assumption in commissioning a report. They would've been better served in using 3 scenarios, one with increases, one status quo and one with decreasing traffic. My understanding is although traffic into the core has decreased traffic out of the core has been increasing and is expected to continue doing so. Looking at the total traffic numbers it appears the decreases have really leveled off over the last few years after some initial sizeable reductions.

Huh. Given that Halcrow, even utilizing the City's optimistic assumptions, still recommended a +15 year timeline for removal of the viaducts, the current plan seems even more foolish. I suspect the precipitous timing of the current plan has more to do with Mr. Meggs' political plans than it does with any realistic assessment.

[trofirhen]

All those parks, Georgia ending in a view of a beautiful fountain, the possibility of a new neighbourhood ..... sure it all looks great. However (and I hate to be a pessimist and Politically Incorrect at the same time) ... I think the removal of a major east-west arterial into and out of downtown is a grave mistake, which will be regretted in the long run. In addition, there will - in a supremely absurd irony, perhaps - be a study on how to REBUILD some sort of east-west road connector, when the traffic in that area becomes gridlocked. The new scheme may look all beautiful, but it's a step backward, IMO. Anyway, time will tell. You got what you voted for. Now you have to live with it.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by IanS

Huh. Given that Halcrow, even utilizing the City's optimistic assumptions, still recommended a +15 year timeline for removal of the viaducts, the current plan seems even more foolish.

It's not the same scenario. The Halcrow 100% model saw complete removal with no capacity replacement. It assumed that Dunsmuir and Georgia would be truncated entirely and did not consider the creation of a new connection at Georgia and New Pacific.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by IanS

Huh. Given that Halcrow, even utilizing the City's optimistic assumptions, still recommended a +15 year timeline for removal of the viaducts, the current plan seems even more foolish. I suspect the precipitous timing of the current plan has more to do with Mr. Meggs' political plans than it does with any realistic assessment.

According to the boards, if we did decide to remove the 'ducts, it would take ~ 3 years for final land use plans to be made and 18 mos for construction.


From the halcrow report re: timing:

As we look to the future, the transportation modelling shows that a large portion of the trip growth will occur on transit.... A 100% reduction (of the viaducts) would divert more vehicles but is still within the capacity of the adjacent streets and does not appear to divert enough vehicles that the current road network cannot adequately handle.

The 20% scenario could be undertaken tomorrow given the level of impact, the 50% scenario due to complexity and the need to determine what the configuration would look like would take about 5-10 years before being reasonably implemented. The UBC Line, Evergreen Line and Hastings B-Line should all be in place to ensure that there are travel options available for people for the 100% Removal scenario. As such, the timing for the 100% Removal scenario is likely in the +15 yrs range.

it seems like they decided on the 15+ year time line to build transit corridors, and also acknowledge currently we have the existing street capacity handle resulting traffic from removing the ducts.

If we did decide to remove the 'ducts, i would want to light a fire under the feet of translink to get these corridors developed. It would be interesting to see if we can get london-style bus lanes on Hastings. The UBC skytrain would take a few more years, but evergreen hopefully is ready to go.

ultimately whether this, the process and the final product, will be a success or failure is vision vancouver's problem.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

It's not the same scenario. The Halcrow 100% model saw complete removal with no capacity replacement. It assumed that Dunsmuir and Georgia would be truncated entirely and did not consider the creation of a new connection at Georgia and New Pacific.

That's true, though the Halcrow 100% removal option does seem to incorporate some replacement capacity, at least in the concept drawings. But you are correct, the current plan seems to replace a large percentage of the capacity to an at grade road.

So, at the end of the day, what do we achieve? Well, we divert a good deal of traffic to surrounding neighborhoods; we increase travel times; at best, we take the traffic that currently runs on the viaducts and put it at grade.

[IanS]

Here's the full quote from Halcrow on the 100% removal option:

Summary of 100% Removal Traffic Impacts
This option presents the most significant reduction in east/west road network capacity as well as loss of segregated walking and cycling facilities with the complete removal of both the Georgia and Dunsmuir St viaducts. This scenario results in significant diversion of trips to other east/west corridors including minor roads such as Keefer St. The model results show the level of traffic dispersion that occurs as vehicle-based trips seek alternatives to access the downtown area. This scenario also results in more significant increases to auto travel times generally on the road network which results in a moderate diversion of trips to transit. Furthermore, the increased vehicle congestion on transit corridors has a noticeable impact on bus travel times
which discourages further diversion of trips to transit. As a result, some transit users that were on buses on east/west corridors divert to the Expo Line where travel times are faster and more predictable. Pedestrians and cyclists are significantly impacted with the loss of separated facilities on both viaducts. Cyclists currently have no comparable separated east/west route that provides safe and convenient access to and from the downtown area across the eastern CBD neck.

and

Potential Timing
As we look to the future, the transportation modelling shows that a large portion of the trip growth will occur on transit. This means that the road network is able to handle capacity reductions of varying degrees by some diversion to transit, but also redirection to other streets. A reduction of 20% would have little to no impact on adjacent streets, 50% would divert a moderate number of vehicles to the adjacent streets and would likely cause some increased travel times but is within the roadway capacity. A 100% reduction would divert more vehicles but is still within the capacity of the adjacent streets and does not appear to divert enough vehicles that the current road network cannot adequately handle.

The 20% scenario could be undertaken tomorrow given the level of impact, the 50% scenario due to complexity and the need to determine what the configuration would look like would take about 5-10 years before being reasonably implemented. The UBC Line, Evergreen Line and Hastings B-Line should all be in place to ensure that there are travel options available for people for the 100% Removal scenario. As such, the timing for the 100% Removal scenario is likely in the +15 yrs range.

So, while Halcrow does say that the surrounding roads have the capacity to handle the traffic, it sure isn't something they recommend jumping into.

If we did decide to remove the 'ducts, i would want to light a fire under the feet of translink to get these corridors developed. It would be interesting to see if we can get london-style bus lanes on Hastings. The UBC skytrain would take a few more years, but evergreen hopefully is ready to go.

I'm not particularly optimistic that Translink in that respect. It's possible that things will change over the next several years, but the current model does not seem very effective at promoting new services.

ultimately whether this, the process and the final product, will be a success or failure is vision vancouver's problem.

Sadly, I think it will be Vancouver's problem, not Vision's. I expect Meggs will be in Victoria by the time the damage is done.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by IanS

Sadly, I think it will be Vancouver's problem, not Vision's.

Or it could be vancouver's/vision's success . I think you and I can agree that the current council has a lot of political capital on the table with the viaduct issue. One way or the other, it will play out.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

hahaha! Awesome, I was just on global news!

Unfortunately it was one of the parts where I stumbled a bit with my facts, but they are still pretty close (and I get the point accross)

http://www.globaltvbc.com/video/big+chan...s/video.html?v=2243524458&p=3&s=dd#video


new story from last nights news hour final on global!

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

hahaha! Awesome, I was just on global news!

Unfortunately it was one of the parts where I stumbled a bit with my facts, but they are still pretty close (and I get the point accross)

I guess that the footage is at the following:

http://www.globaltvbc.com/video/big+chan...ml?v=2243524458&p=1&s=dd#news+hour+final

In any event. Good job!

Edited to add: Hollywoodnorth beat me to it. haha

[trofirhen]

OK, OK, but as the newscaster mentioned .... what then? Where will all those cars go AFTER the viaducts are torn down? Do Meggs and Co. really believe that all that in-out downtown going east-west can fit onto the reconfigured street grid system?? THAT, I think, is what is at the core of the issue. This may turn into a classic case of "out of the frying pan; into the fire."

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Will Dunsmuir & Georgia be connected to the the road system on the expo lands or will they become dead -end streets?

They want to deadend Dunsmuir and turn it into a highline style park which only goes as far as the stadium. A new bike bridge will connect up to the highline park.

[Pinion]

Let Resort Vancouver do this then turn Metrotown into the city centre.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Or it could be vancouver's/vision's success .

Well, I hope you're right. This is one argument I would like to be on the wrong side of, for sure.

[p78hub]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Let Resort Vancouver do this then turn Metrotown into the city centre.

Metrotown is pretty much the city centre already.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

I guess that the footage is at the following:

http://www.globaltvbc.com/video/big+chan...ml?v=2243524458&p=1&s=dd#news+hour+final

In any event. Good job!

Edited to add: Hollywoodnorth beat me to it. haha

Thanks! Yeah, I had my mom phone me that she saw me on the news, hehe.

I met an interesting guy who runs a blog at the meeting and his feelings were very similar to mine, and others on this forum, regarding the viaducts. He actually sees them as a major part of Vancouver's history, and therefore should be preserved in that regards, and feels the blatant mentality of tearing them down now is no different than the tunnel vision of the 50's and 60's that built so many freeways through cities at that time.

http://yaronstern.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/viaducts-ahoy/

And here is my comment / response:

Fantastic! You summed up my feelings from the “open” house here as well. In fact, there was one precentor that as soon as you began questioning their approach and this “bold new design” he simply ignored you and turned to someone else. This attitude put off myself, and indeed several other participants. Vancouver is loosing much of what makes a true great city, and that is an organic, natural process to urban building. The viaducts have already began their organic amalgamation into the urban fabric (the skate park, the Cosmos development, the area around the stadiums) and indeed Concord original condo proposals to have towers built beside, between and even over them. this process would have created a very unique and funky urban neighborhood. Instead, what we are getting is another cold, emotionless master planned community with vacation style living standards. Again, we are becoming more of a resort, than a city.

[Metro-One]

And honestly, that huge park looks amazingly sterile. This. imo, will honestly become the most boring area of the city.

It reminds me of a massive George Wainborn Park, which throughout the majority of the year is an incredibly sterile parcel of land. I honestly find it depressing when I cycle past it on the seawall. It is amazingly vacant of activity given the high density that surrounds it.

[Hed Kandi]

..