Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[mr.x]

You know, in other cities, they make roads efficient for people to use...

Not necessarily high capacity, but efficient. But here in Vancouver...

[jsbertram]

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.

When the Malkin connector is built, it should connect directly to the viaducts, so the downtown traffic not only by-passes Strathcona on its way to & from Clark Dr, the same traffic also flies over (and therefore bypasses) the new developments along Expo and Pacific Boulevards.

[trofirhen]

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.

good stuff; let's hope it holds

Originally Posted by Metro-One

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

He may get recognized as goofy and not get his wish due to popular will to keep the viaducts.

Originally Posted by mr.x

You know, in other cities, they make roads efficient for people to use...

Not necessarily high capacity, but efficient. But here in Vancouver...

ha ain't that the truth

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

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.

I'm still not following the logic. Right now there are two lanes of through traffic coming out of downtown that head directly to Prior Street by passing OVER Main street with NO traffic signal control until they get to Gore. And Gore has a much higher percentage of signal time dedicated to east/west traffic than Main would. How would the removal of the viaducts, forcing all Prior-bound traffic to contend with a shorter signal at Main Street, increase traffic on Prior?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I'm still not following the logic. Right now there are two lanes of through traffic coming out of downtown that head directly to Prior Street by passing OVER Main street with NO traffic signal control until they get to Gore. And Gore has a much higher percentage of signal time dedicated to east/west traffic than Main would. How would the removal of the viaducts, forcing all Prior-bound traffic to contend with a shorter signal at Main Street, increase traffic on Prior?

Ok, I'll try again.

Right now there's 3 main flows. Viaduct/Main, Viaduct/Prior, and Expo/Pacific/Quebec.

All of those would be funneled on to New Georgia/Prior. The problem is it's harder to get off/on than to push traffic straight on through Strathcona.

For the Expo/Quebec flow, rather than have a dedicated street to access Quebec St, all this movement would be time limited to a traffic light and probably 2 turn lanes each way, hence reduced turning capacity.

For the Viaduct/Main St. flow this would have to compete for traffic light time against the other primary flow which is Viaduct/Prior. Currently they don't compete. Again, max 2 turn lanes each way, just like is there now. Just with less traffic light time. On to that...

As everything is assumed to be at capacity in the CoV study, the traffic Main/Georgia/Prior traffic light will have to be programmed to maximize capacity. Since cornering vehicles move much slower and can only reasonably have 2 lanes each direction the only option to maximize intersection capacity is to make the bulk of the traffic go straight.

The city has also already modeled the Main/Prior intersection as 6 lanes of through traffic showing that the bulk of traffic is expected to go straight through.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

For the Expo/Quebec flow, rather than have a dedicated street to access Quebec St, all this movement would be time limited to a traffic light and probably 2 turn lanes each way, hence reduced turning capacity.

So if I read you correctly, your assumption is that the increased flow along Prior is coming from people who would have used Quebec and then Terminal Avenue in the past?

I don't really buy that argument. First of all, I don't see that there would be any less capacity on the Quebec / Terminal route because the bottlenecks on that route are at the left turn at Terminal and at the Main Street intersection. The fact that you've added another intersection earlier on in the route won't reduce capacity, it will just increase travel times (which will be increased on all routes without the viaducts).

Secondly, I think you're forgetting that the big incentive to use Terminal Avenue is that it's a straight shot to all of East Vancouver and Highway 1. That's not going to change. Someone who wants to access Nanaimo street or points east is not likely to stop using Terminal Avenue because the available routes from the east end of Prior / Venables are much, much worse.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

When the Malkin connector is built, it should connect directly to the viaducts, so the downtown traffic not only by-passes Strathcona on its way to & from Clark Dr, the same traffic also flies over (and therefore bypasses) the new developments along Expo and Pacific Boulevards.

Except there's that group ranting about their "irreplaceable" community garden that would be displaced by the Malkin Connector, and this being Vancouver that's probably enough to kill it.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Except there's that group ranting about their "irreplaceable" community garden that would be displaced by the Malkin Connector, and this being Vancouver that's probably enough to kill it.

If so, and given that it appears the NDP will win, does this mean NO Malkin connector and NO MORE viaducts. ?? Augh!

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Except there's that group ranting about their "irreplaceable" community garden that would be displaced by the Malkin Connector, and this being Vancouver that's probably enough to kill it.

Good lord, surely there is a park somewhere they could fit it into.

Although frankly if the Malkin connector was ever built, I think it'd be neat if it was made as a greenway, with evergreens lining the sides and middle of the elevated portions.

[jlenko]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

If so, and given that it appears the NDP will win, does this mean NO Malkin connector and NO MORE viaducts. ?? Augh!

NDP doesn't do anything highway or traffic related. This would be up to Vancouver to solve on their own, without the involvement of the Provincial government.

Besides, NDP would just replace it with a ferry service!

[Toddlertoddy]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Except there's that group ranting about their "irreplaceable" community garden that would be displaced by the Malkin Connector, and this being Vancouver that's probably enough to kill it.

I've been to the garden and I can say it is so f****** big. I would be devastated if it were removed after so much hard work (it takes a lot to plant stuff)

[dreambrother808]

It's the most interesting community garden in the city but I still think it should be moved if need be.

[tybuilding]

http://spacing.ca/vancouver/2013/04/29/will-vancouver-replace-a-freeway-with-a-stroad/

Will Vancouver Replace a Freeway with a Stroad?
APRIL 29, 2013 | BY NEILSALMOND

Vancouver’s freeway remnants are finally due for demolition. City staff like to draw comparisons to New York’s High Line and Seoul’s famous river daylighting. These cities’ viaducts were replaced by wonderful urban oases, tourist destinations through which thousands of visitors and locals stroll each year.

However, Vancouver’s current plan appears to be to replace the viaducts with a stroad: a wide, fast thoroughfare in the city that will endanger and annoy pedestrians and cyclists, while frustrating drivers with its intersections and crosswalks.

.....

[Sir Conga]

Not a stroad!! anything but a stroad!

[officedweller]

Arguably, Pacific Blvd and Expo Blvd are currently stroads - but they'll be replacing them with a BIGGER stroad.

[Sir Conga]

I was just being facetious, as I found the term somewhat amusing.

[makr3trkr]

I feel like at least one, maybe two of those 5 (or 6 depending how you look at it) intersections within a few hundred metres
could (or should?) be right in/right out only or even right in/right out/left out instead of full movement.

[Metro-One]

That new plan is going to be a traffic nightmare, making a problem where one did not exist before...

[Sir Conga]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

That new plan is going to be a traffic nightmare, making a problem where one did not exist before...

That's funny, because in my opinion, the Viaducts solve a problem that no longer exists.

I personally am not in favour of rushing the destruction of the Viaducts before their possible life-span. Nor am I in favour of going against the will of the people to force said destruction.

I have to wonder though, for those of you in favour of keeping the Viaducts... Do you think they should stay until they crumble (maintaining them as best as possible along the way)? and then rebuild them?

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

That new plan is going to be a traffic nightmare, making a problem where one did not exist before...

This is my thinking as well....take a free flowing route, and replace with 5 intersections over the same distance. Why is this a good thing?