Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Excuse me. I DON'T keep bringing it up. I just stumbled across it a few says ago, and wondered what the freak it was all about, that's all. As for being a good idea or not, it's not my cup of tea at all, but never having heard of it until a week ago made me wonder about it, that's all. Excuse me, please. Dossier classé.

Originally Posted by jlousa

You brought it up in the Science world thread of all places a few days ago and was told by another member that it wasn't a real proposal and just someone's conceptual design, and now you are bringing it up here again.
Not sure why, if you want to stoke conversataion on it because you think it's a good idea then state that, instead you ask whatever happened to the project, it was never a real project.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I stand corrected; I brought it up twice. It was out of plain curiosity. Now that it's a non-issue, so be it. (it looked grotesque, anyway) Let it die.

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I saw it referred to as "The Georgia Grind," but perhaps I mean the GEORGIA STEPS. It was a snaking concrete walkway that coiled around and made for sort of an urban "hike," and was to be located pretty much where the viaducts are.


http://www.rufproject.com/projects/projects/i5/tangetialbabel_Page_25.jpg

That is apriori a plagia of this re:connect entry:


http://www.viaductscomp.ca/view_submission.php?ID=81

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Vonny

http://www.viaductscomp.ca/view_submission.php?ID=81

[Sir Conga]

Last weeks issue of The Courier reported that a report from the city on the future of the Viaducts will be delayed until June. The same issue has a letter to the editor from Councillor Meggs pointing out all the wonderful parks that a Viaduct removal would bring. There have also been suggestions from Courier readers that a referendum should be sought on this issue.

Story from The Courier.

[spm2013]

....

[Jebby]

I hope the Province prevents the city from tearing the viaducts down...

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Jebby

I hope the Province prevents the city from tearing the viaducts down...

statement seconded

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

statement seconded

third!


I think we need a referendum on it.

[Sir Conga]

I disagree.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

third!


I think we need a referendum on it.

4th

[Stingray2004]

I've said it many times and I will say it again. The Georgia Viaduct is part of Translink's MRN AND both the Georgia Viaduct and Dunsmuir Viaduct are also part of Translink's designated truck routes.

Again, Translink would need to approve any demolition and I doubt that will happen.

A recent example is 32nd Ave. in Surrey, between 152nd and 176th, whereby Surrey council requested Translink remove its designation as a designated truck route. Based upon Translink's report of January 21, 2013 that ain't gonna happen either.

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/document...0route%20final%20technical%20report.ashx

The CoV will never get through those hoops.

And even if they did (very doubtful), the demolition of the viaducts and reconstruction of Pacific Blvd. is a major money matter, which requires CoV voter approval at referendum IIRC.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

Last weeks issue of The Courier reported that a report from the city on the future of the Viaducts will be delayed until June. The same issue has a letter to the editor from Councillor Meggs pointing out all the wonderful parks that a Viaduct removal would bring. There have also been suggestions from Courier readers that a referendum should be sought on this issue.

Story from The Courier.

June is Bike Month. More people will be riding the viaducts that month. I wonder if that's just a coincidence.

[jlousa]

I imagine they are waiting till after the provincial election, so that the MRN issue can be dealt with by a more favourable government, it's no secret that Meggs and Dix are pretty close.

[Alex Mackinnon]

It's not conspiracy, neighbourhood groups are also pushing for everything to get delayed.

The city wants to get this done before they even attempt to start work on an Eastern Core plan. For the most part the neighbourhood associations are against this as the follow up to the viaducts removal would probably be done on the cheap and neglect to address traffic and livability concerns in a timely manner.

The SRA has been told that Prior will be addressed after the viaducts come down, but the city can't allocate money to even planning this right now since they've blown through their allocated planning budget. We're not really willing to give the city a free pass on this for a decade while they get their act together. So, the SRA is pushing back against the current removal plans.

In my opinion the city is still putting the cart before the horse. The timeline Meggs is pushing should be scuttled, pushing everything back to the election cycle. This would give time to make any removal options part of an Eastern Core planning process or as a part of a ballot initiative.

[Metro-One]

yeah I know, if they are truly committed to the Malkin Connector to help with the traffic flow after their removal, then why is it not being built first???

This entire thing has been a gong show and so incredibly transparent.

[MetroRailRoad]

I visit prior street pretty often, and I have seen my share of sigs protesting the removal of the viaducts. I agree that the viaducts should stay up until the Malkin connector is built. As it is right now, there is a lot of traffic that would probably congest the below streets currently existing.

[officedweller]

Agreed that the Malkin connector should be built first.
However, once you do that, one of the biggest objections to the viaducts - that the traffic splits Strathcona - will be gone - so that lessens the reasons to take them down.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by MetroRailRoad

I agree that the viaducts should stay up until the Malkin connector is built.

I'm against the viaduct removal while they still have useful life remaining - but I'm having a problem understanding the rationale of your statement. How will removing the viaducts increase traffic? I'd think that removing such a direct connection to downtown would be more likely to spread existing traffic out somewhat among other the alternatives. Certainly if the capacity of the replacement streets aren't higher, I'm having a hard time visualizing why traffic on Prior would increase.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Agreed that the Malkin connector should be built first.
However, once you do that, one of the biggest objections to the viaducts - that the traffic splits Strathcona - will be gone - so that lessens the reasons to take them down.

Exactly And goofy Meggs and friends know this, it goes against their set in stone political agenda.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I'm against the viaduct removal while they still have useful life remaining - but I'm having a problem understanding the rationale of your statement. How will removing the viaducts increase traffic? I'd think that removing such a direct connection to downtown would be more likely to spread existing traffic out somewhat among other the alternatives. Certainly if the capacity of the replacement streets aren't higher, I'm having a hard time visualizing why traffic on Prior would increase.

Intersection configuration. It's easier to allow cars to continue straight through on towards Prior than to turn off on either Quebec or Main St.

They can't get enough capacity if the primary traffic flow has to go through a 90° bend. For the most part intersections max out at double left and double right turn lanes except under extreme (and in my opinion stupid) circumstances. These 2 lanes would have less capacity given them same amount of time because all the traffic has to slow to go around the corner mid intersection, especially truck traffic.

The intersection capacity is crucial because this new setup is supposed to be "congested" about 7 hours a day under CoV's model. As you can imagine intersections for the most part are the choke points in a road network.

So instead of the current portion of cars turning south onto Main St. and Quebec a larger portion will have to carry through on to Clark/Knight in order for traffic to get out of the area.