Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[s211]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Actually taking out the benches would make more room for cyclists and pedestrians... nobody ever sits in them.

Only people that use them are the cabal the city hires to do manual usage counts. I'm dying for an explanation as to why they need more than one over-paid unionista doing the same count at the same time?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by s211

Only people that use them are the cabal the city hires to do manual usage counts. I'm dying for an explanation as to why they need more than one over-paid unionista doing the same count at the same time?

Wow, the hate is strong here.

The wide Cambie sidewalk on the east side is well used.

Maybe you can campaign with your NPA hero Susan Anton against these bike lanes... oh no wait, she voted for them.

[DKaz]

Granville Bridge I can definitely understand, someone seriously overestimated future traffic requirements for once and I don't see that capacity getting used up, ever. Cambie needs its full six lanes.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

I think you're right. Kind of a scorched earth plan going on here

I don't know that I'd refer to it as "scorched earth" (except, perhaps, the viaducts plan), but I think Meggs' personal ambitions are definitely affecting the timing of some of these initiatives.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Granville Bridge I can definitely understand, someone seriously overestimated future traffic requirements for once and I don't see that capacity getting used up, ever.

It was supposed to link up to an east-west freeway that was never built.

[s211]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Wow, the hate is strong here.

The wide Cambie sidewalk on the east side is well used.

Maybe you can campaign with your NPA hero Susan Anton against these bike lanes... oh no wait, she voted for them.

Wake up. I was responding to the observation about the benches.

You want hate? OK, then! As a pedestrian, I actually use the west-side sidewalk whenever possible. Avoids the bikes that like to weave through the pedestrians. Make that "mostly avoids"... you get at least a few cyclepaths that feel a "no bike" sign is something to deride (pun intended), and ride on the west sidewalk. I love making them get off their bikes to get past me as a pedestrian.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by s211

Wake up. I was responding to the observation about the benches.

You want hate? OK, then! As a pedestrian, I actually use the west-side sidewalk whenever possible. Avoids the bikes that like to weave through the pedestrians. Make that "mostly avoids"... you get at least a few cyclepaths that feel a "no bike" sign is something to deride (pun intended), and ride on the west sidewalk. I love making them get off their bikes to get past me as a pedestrian.

...but you don't support bike lanes. How's the air on your planet?

[s211]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

...but you don't support bike lanes. How's the air on your planet?

On my planet, if a sign says "no bikes", I expect there not to be bikes. Are you perhaps one of the cyclists that feel those signs are an infringement on your god-given rights?

On my planet, the oxygen level is just fine, thanks for checking though.

[Porfiry]

This thread is just going further and further off-topic.

[DKaz]

I ride on the Cambie Bridge roadway. That's my high speed alternative to taking the east sidewalk. Experienced cyclists will feel comfortable enough to use it.

It also infuriates me to see cyclists riding on sidewalks and pedestrians walking on bike paths. I believe inline skaters can be both but on the Seawall they're clearly designated as cyclists. I was skating on the E 45th Ave roadway which is part of Midtown/Ridgeway I believe and a driver got mad at me.

Thanks officedweller. 6th Ave is almost like a freeway anyway between Cambie and Granville.

[officedweller]

Seems like the Malkin Connector is still being pursued by the City:

http://www.vancourier.com/Strathcona+residents+back+destruction+viaducts/6823142/story.html

Strathcona residents back destruction of viaducts
By Cheryl Rossi, Vancouver Courier
June 22, 2012

Many Strathcona residents support the demolition of the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts on the condition the city reduces traffic on Prior Street.

"They've come up with this great viaduct removal plan, but everything just falls shy of Gore Street and there's no consideration beyond that," said community organizer Pete Fry. "All the Eastern Core Strategies are vague promises that don't offer the concrete reassurance we need. We need some reassurance from the city that we're not going to be bearing the brunt of the traffic impact of this viaduct removal scheme."

The concept presented at recent open houses sees combined Expo and Pacific boulevards on the north side of the SkyTrain line connected to Prior/Venables for cars and delivery trucks travelling east and west to and from downtown.

Fry said busy Prior already keeps residents from Strathcona Park. Fry's friend was struck while crossing Prior on foot two years ago and suffered permanent brain damage and Fry has seen two dogs hit by cars.

Residents between Prior and Union are also feeling squeezed by a growing number of cyclists on Union. Fry said one of his neighbours had her teeth knocked out when she collided, on foot, with a cyclist.

Jerry Dobrovolny, the city's director of transportation, says the current concept shouldn't see traffic worsen on Prior. "The worst case scenario in terms of our modelling had Prior staying about the same and more likely less," he said.

Two traffic signals on the new, expanded Pacific Boulevard would make that route slower and less attractive to commuters, according to Dobrovolny.

The city expects with the viaducts gone some drivers would stop travelling in that corner of downtown, others will shift to First Avenue, Second Avenue and Great Northern Way, some would use 12th Avenue and others would move to Hastings and Powell, in the worst case scenario. Dobrovolny noted the city is seeing fewer vehicle trips each year.

"We would not support a plan that added more vehicles onto Prior/Venables," Dobrovolny said. "Our long-range plan is to reduce the number of vehicles significantly on Prior/Venables to allow for a greenway to be looked at on Venables and to redirect the traffic that does need to access the downtown from that access of the city onto a new Malkin [Avenue]."

The city wants to connect Malkin Avenue to Clark Drive with an overpass using federal infrastructure money.

Residents have suggested redirecting delivery trucks onto Malkin then Raymur Avenue to Venables in the nearer future. Dobrovolny said such measures could be undertaken "in phased work."

Residents have organized a meeting with Vision Vancouver Coun. Geoff Meggs and city staff in Strathcona, where no open houses for the current concept occurred, for July 7. Residents are organizing a peaceful community action event to be held shortly before that date.

Dobrovolny said the city would try to meet with community members before July 7. City council is expected to vote on the concept of removing the viaducts, July 24 or 25.

[logan5]

"They've come up with this great viaduct removal plan, but everything just falls shy of Gore Street and there's no consideration beyond that," said community organizer Pete Fry. "All the Eastern Core Strategies are vague promises that don't offer the concrete reassurance we need. We need some reassurance from the city that we're not going to be bearing the brunt of the traffic impact of this viaduct removal scheme."

Residents have organized a meeting with Vision Vancouver Coun. Geoff Meggs and city staff in Strathcona, where no open houses for the current concept occurred, for July 7. Residents are organizing a peaceful community action event to be held shortly before that date.

Am I missing something here, or are these people completely oblivious, and motivated purely on knee jerk reaction? Like the transportation director said, if anything there will be less traffic through Strathcona as drivers may look for an alternate route. It would at the very least (viaduct removal) have a traffic calming effect, as drivers would not come barrelling off the viaducts and on to Prior St.

[Sir Conga]

I had the same reaction. There is a petition at a local shop in Strathcona calling for a stop to the Viaduct Removal, claiming that "new Prior" will connect to a six lane highway... which to me, is an odd characterization of the plans. As a resident of the area, I think the removal of the Viaducts would be great. The part I would be most concerned about would be what kind of development would be going in between Gore and Main.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

I had the same reaction. There is a petition at a local shop in Strathcona calling for a stop to the Viaduct Removal, claiming that "new Prior" will connect to a six lane highway... which to me, is an odd characterization of the plans. As a resident of the area, I think the removal of the Viaducts would be great. The part I would be most concerned about would be what kind of development would be going in between Gore and Main.

As much as I think this whole plan is bad, if the viaducts were removed, I hope buildings with heritage / Chinatown referencing podiums (Brick, recessed balconies, neon signs, et al). I know some people think Interurban is 'pomo trash' but I quite like the idea of something like that in these spots.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Right now the city's traffic projections had a significant increase projected to occur on Prior as of the open house. I'd imagine since they're the ones pushing things, they're probably not on the pessimistic side of things. If I recall correctly, they estimated peak usage going from 1600 vehicles an hour to 2000ish.

I'd imagine in the long term, traffic counts will probably stay flat, but congestion will back up into Strathcona significantly more, since the the choke point will be moved closer to our neighbourhood.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Right now the city's traffic projections had a significant increase projected to occur on Prior as of the open house. I'd imagine since they're the ones pushing things, they're probably not on the pessimistic side of things. If I recall correctly, they estimated peak usage going from 1600 vehicles an hour to 2000ish.

I'd imagine in the long term, traffic counts will probably stay flat, but congestion will back up into Strathcona significantly more, since the the choke point will be moved closer to our neighbourhood.

Check the latest "clarification" on the City's page. Apparently, what they meant to say was that traffic on Prior would decrease: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/currentplanning/fcflats/pdf/PriorVenablesFAQ.pdf

[Metro-One]

Hahahaha! what they "meant to say." The charts and graphs at the open house clearly depicting a considerable increase in traffic, with the representatives frequently regurgitating what was being displayed. I am sure one of them would have noticed this "mistake" prior to the open house or at least sometime during it....

What a fix this entire situation is.

Blind ideology of the past to pave massive freeways through urban areas was a disaster, but this complete reversal blind ideology is just as bad, I hate extremes.

I am also sure all of their "experts" were cherry picked to coincide with their goal. For even at SFU i know several geography profs who are against this plan, and they strangely were not consulted during this process (how about that!)

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

What a fix this entire situation is.

Blind ideology of the past to pave massive freeways through urban areas was a disaster, but this complete reversal blind ideology is just as bad, I hate extremes.

BINGO!!!

You've hit the nail on the proverbial head. From one political extreme during the 1960's ... to the current political extreme. I also had those same reflections.

But what I still don't understand are the unanswered questions. Literally. And yes, I remain repetitive in that vein:

1. The Georgia Viaduct is part of Translink's MRN;

2. Both the Georgia Viaduct and Dunsmuir Viaduct are also part of Translink's "Truck Route Network";

Translink has never removed a circa 1999 Translink MRN route unless it was a new and "superior" alternative. And frankly, CoV's alternative could be categorized as inferior at best.

Translink has also never removed a circa 1999 designated "Truck Route Network". To wit, during 2003, Surrey City council requested Translink's "Truck Route Network" designation removal of 32nd Ave., west of Hwy 15 to Hwy 99, from Translink (because of a huge political outcry from local residents) and Translink DECLINED.

With alot of political pressure, Surrey City council, within the past year, again requested that Translink remove the same "Truck Route Designation" and were declined again by Translink.

So... regarding BOTH viaducts... what makes Van City believe that they are "so special"?!

Van City reps apparently have not discussed these material matters. Curious minds just wanna know!

Frankly, I would enjoy a response to these legally imbedded matters by the CoV before we all continue on in this debate. Where are they??????

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by IanS

Check the latest "clarification" on the City's page. Apparently, what they meant to say was that traffic on Prior would decrease: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/currentplanning/fcflats/pdf/PriorVenablesFAQ.pdf

Hey, look they magically changed it. Now it says Pacific would be at capacity from day 1 and the remaining 900 cars per hour would all have to divert.

30% traffic increase on Cordova
35% traffic increase on Hastings
25% traffic increase on Pender

Man, all these options sound just plain dandy.

I specifically bugged the city traffic engineer about this when I was at the open house, and he admitted yes Prior would see more traffic. So either they screwed up their simulation initially, or they've changed the plan again to choke Pacific and Georgia even more. Huzzah!

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by IanS

Check the latest "clarification" on the City's page. Apparently, what they meant to say was that traffic on Prior would decrease: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/currentplanning/fcflats/pdf/PriorVenablesFAQ.pdf

And people wonder why people question the city's figures on anything, what with this kind of jerrymandering, seeing staff stomping on bike lane counters etc. Vision magically gets the results it wants.