Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[mr.x]

Not much more can be said if one infers we shouldn't be fixing potholes in the road... nice logic there.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Not much more can be said if one infers we shouldn't be fixing potholes in the road... nice logic there.

I'm not saying that. Everybody freaks out over a few dollars spent on bike lanes, meanwhile tens of millions are spent for cars routinely.

[jlenko]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm not saying that. Everybody freaks out over a few dollars spent on bike lanes, meanwhile tens of millions are spent for cars routinely.

Everybody freaks out about losing vehicle lanes to bicycles.. when the gas taxes, insurance, etc should be going to pay for those roads but sadly they are not the sole source of the funding to pay for roads.

I have no problems about widening existing roads to accommodate cyclists safely.. (although I think the divided lanes downtown are a waste..). Taking away parking and driving lanes, changing traffic flows, making it impossible for businesses downtown to do business to appease a few fair-weather cyclists? That's f'n stupid.

[mr.x]

^ Exactly. I wouldn't have that much of an issue with the money spent on bike lanes if the cycling infrastructure weren't so poorly implemented to the point it grossly makes the road system inefficient and slow for everyone else and hurts the bigger picture of the road system - the vast majority in cars, buses, goods vehicles, emergency vehicles, etc. ... all this trouble and impact just for this tiny seasonal cyclist minority? This impact is also economical.

It's almost as if the whole thing is someone's anti-car ideological middle finger to everyone else who doesn't cycle, regardless of its negative impact. For another instance, all evidence points AGAINST the removal of the viaducts...among the many good reasons not to tear them down, it'll greatly increase street traffic in all the other roads. Nevermind making the road more inefficient and slow for cars and buses, how does the removal even make the area more pedestrian or even cyclist friendly when there are more cars along these once quaint(er) roads?

Much of the cycling infrastructure built over the last few years and the forced proposal to demolish the viaducts into yet another green lawn park and a massive street-level 5-light stop & go road are forms of REGRESSION.

[GMasterAres]

The biggest singular notion the environmental anti-car lobby fails to ever acknowledge when it comes to road infrastructure is that idling cars are far more destructive to the environment than cars moving around a city efficiently. There is this false notion that if you make driving —, people will get out of their cars. This unfortunately has been proven in every city around the planet to be a complete myth. But environmentalists always state that "we'll be different." "We're better."

I do think though it may be a good idea for the rest of the region if Vancouver tears down the viaducts. If traffic becomes more and more insane, it just means more business relocating and jobs migrating closer to where most people live these days, in the suburbs.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jlenko

Everybody freaks out about losing vehicle lanes to bicycles.. when the gas taxes, insurance, etc should be going to pay for those roads but sadly they are not the sole source of the funding to pay for roads.

I have no problems about widening existing roads to accommodate cyclists safely.. (although I think the divided lanes downtown are a waste..). Taking away parking and driving lanes, changing traffic flows, making it impossible for businesses downtown to do business to appease a few fair-weather cyclists? That's f'n stupid.

I'm not sure what your point is about funding. Insurance is what you pay to drive your car, nothing to do with the road. Gas tax doesn't cover road maintenance by a long shot. The rest of local road maintenance is paid for by property taxes.

And no roads in the urban area of Metro Vancouver are getting widened... there's no room.

Please enlighten me on how all of the businesses along any bike lanes downtown have suffered.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by jhausner

The biggest singular notion the environmental anti-car lobby fails to ever acknowledge when it comes to road infrastructure is that idling cars are far more destructive to the environment than cars moving around a city efficiently. There is this false notion that if you make driving —, people will get out of their cars. This unfortunately has been proven in every city around the planet to be a complete myth. But environmentalists always state that "we'll be different." "We're better."

I do think though it may be a good idea for the rest of the region if Vancouver tears down the viaducts. If traffic becomes more and more insane, it just means more business relocating and jobs migrating closer to where most people live these days, in the suburbs.

Here in Victoria they have been building more and more bike lanes and slowing down traffic more and more and yet ridership hasn't increased so all they have done is waste everyone's time and money that drives and created more and more air pollution. Smart plan.

[Sir Conga]

Vancouver Bike/Pedestrian Discussion

[jlousa]

*Moderator hat on* I concur, let's leave this thread about the viaducts, it's fine to talk about bikes/transit etc if it's tied directly to the viaducts but it's obviously dragged off topic for too long.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Name a city in Metro Vancouver that is making any significant transit investments. Transit budgets aren't in a municipality's range.

Cities are responsible for the most part for the roads the buses actually travel on. They decide things like parking hours, turning restrictions, and dedicated HOV lanes and can install queue jumpers. When has they city of Vancouver done anything within their power to improve transit?

While it's not huge, Surrey recently spent some cash putting up bush shelters at almost every bus stop. They are trying to make taking the bus more convenient, and seeing as they don't have direct control over bus frequency, they helped where they could by making waiting for the bus more pleasant. They also widened 96 ave and their project included bus stops/bays even though there is no bus route.

What has Vancouver done? They built a nice throughfare on Robson for buses, but close it so that buses, instead of directly connecting the shopping side of Robson street with Pacific Center and Granville, the bus goes God knows where. Granville street is a great bus only that has convienient stops connecting both the Canada Line and Skytrain to many routes that traverse the city of Vancouver, but they routinely close it all the time, without corresponding parking restriction on Howe/Seymore so even at non peak times, buses get backed up. They've made it very difficult for buses to get around on Burrard by limiting the amount of traffic that can get over the bridge. On top of it, the bus lanes are only active in peak direction/time so the rest of the day the bus has to weave in and out of horrible traffic and across bike lanes (so safe).

Once they tear down the Viaducts, traffic that currently uses it will be diverted to the other major roads that have direct access to/from the core: Cordova, Pender, and Hastings; all of which are major bus routes. What's going to be the impact on the buses (and other bike routes) when traffic increases on those roads, and has the city done ANYTHING to address those concerns/risks? They drew a pretty picture of a streetcar in their brochure for the new park they want, but not a mention of how/when that would happen. Nor what they will do on Cordova/Pender/Hastings if there are no Viaducts.

Everything is peachy right now, but in the near future it is possible that most of the people that have regular jobs downtown won't be able to live as close as they do now (if realestate stays high). Bike lanes won't help all the barristas and paper filers that will be forced to live outside the city in the future. If we want to keep mode share for cars low (and get it lower) the real long term strategy should focus on transit (that or crash the housing market so people can continue to afford to live close to work).

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Here in Victoria they have been building more and more bike lanes and slowing down traffic more and more and yet ridership hasn't increased so all they have done is waste everyone's time and money that drives and created more and more air pollution. Smart plan.

As cars become more and more electric, the focus will shift from polluting cars to creating more livable cities.

I think the environmental concerns of idling cars is a bit of a red herring, to be honest. The REAL benefit of reducing road capacity is that you're building and encouraging people-focused cities that people want to live in. You're giving priority to people over cars.

This is why although I'd like to see the viaducts maintained until their end of life and think that removing them now is just a little "legacy building" I'm mixed.

VIADUCT PROS

• Viaducts keep the arterial traffic off the streets people live in.
• Viaducts are a natural rain barrier
• Viaducts allow secondary roads to be slower

On the other hand, people see them as a barrier. This is something that I think creative INTEGRATION could solve. However, it is MUCH more profitable for a developer (especially ones in Vancouver who are used to working with easy rectangular empty lots) to change the color on a high-rise and adjust the shape of the balconies than to actually design around a solid constraint. This constraint, however, could allow more creativity to flourish.

That's why MOST of the serious designs that came in for the viaducts competition brought the viaducts down. It's EASIER (not necessarily better).

Additionally, if they're integrated, I think that noise barriers should be put up along the sides of the viaduct. They reduce pollution a great deal (noise pollution) and drastically increase livability of an area with a major thoroughfare.

I'd love to see a contest that re-imagines the area with the premise that one or both viaducts remain intact.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

While it's not huge, Surrey recently spent some cash putting up bush shelters at almost every bus stop. They are trying to make taking the bus more convenient, and seeing as they don't have direct control over bus frequency, they helped where they could by making waiting for the bus more pleasant. They also widened 96 ave and their project included bus stops/bays even though there is no bus route.

What has Vancouver done?

Not to get too off-topic, normally I respect/agree with your arguments but I think this one is rather weak:

• The City of Vancouver has been installing new bus shelters in the past ten years.
• I can argue that the bus bays that Surrey has installed is not necessarily an "improvement" to bus transit. While buses have the right of way when changing lanes on roads regulated at 60kph or less, the fact that buses need to change lanes when pulling out of a stop doesn't prioritise bus services, but rather gives priority to general road traffic.

There are definitely many more things the city has done to improve transit around. Have there been some drawbacks to other infrastructure projects? Most definitely. But to say the City of Vancouver has solely focused on cycling infrastructure at the expense of public transit is a bit of a stretch.

[Sir Conga]

Freeways without a Future: The Rightsizing Street Guide from PPS.

The Park East Freeway has a few similarities to our Viaducts.

I found this at Price Tags

[jlousa]

Interesting commentary from Avision Young on the matter.

The impact on industrial users in East Vancouver arising from the potential removal of the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts remains uncertain as city council prepares to vote on a staff report due in early 2013 that will recommend what should be done with the elevated roadways.
The City of Vancouver is aware of business concerns regarding goods movement, as indicated in appendix D of the City’s Transportation 2040 plan (which was approved by council October 31, 2012), which revealed during phase 2 outreach consultations held in June/July 2012 that the “more common themes and ideas” that emerged from stakeholder and community groups on this topic were included under the heading “Local Goods and Services Movement: 2.1. Maintain an efficient network of designated truck routes.”
Those “themes and ideas” included: “Is there consideration for secondary truck routes to ease other routes i.e. King Edward and 49th Avenue? Many of Vancouver (sic) streets don’t work for goods movement,” reads the report. “There is a weak articulation of how the city is supporting goods movement particularly in collaboration with the Port and TransLink.”
For its part, Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) declined to comment on the impact the
removal of the viaducts and related infrastructure could have on its industrial tenants along the south shore of Burrard Inlet or industrial operators off the water in East Vancouver.
According to a port spokesperson, “PMV has decided to respectfully decline the opportunity to respond at this time since a revised proposal has yet to be considered by council.”

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

Freeways without a Future: The Rightsizing Street Guide from PPS.

The Park East Freeway has a few similarities to our Viaducts.

I found this at Price Tags

Posting anything from "pricetags" is akin to posting a tobacco study done by Marlboro.

I was in Milwaukee last month and the road in question was actually replaced by a network of elevated roadways (which overlap eachother in places LA freeway style) whose final construction is not even fully finished yet. (bet good ole uncle Gordy failed to mention that little part didn't he? ). In Vancouver terms, the equivalent would be to tear down the viaducts, put build even larger ones somewhere on the waterfront or on Terminal Ave

[Sir Conga]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Posting anything from "pricetags" is akin to posting a tobacco study done by Marlboro.

I was in Milwaukee last month and the road in question was actually replaced by a network of elevated roadways (which overlap eachother in places LA freeway style) whose final construction is not even fully finished yet. (bet good ole uncle Gordy failed to mention that little part didn't he? ). In Vancouver terms, the equivalent would be to tear down the viaducts, put build even larger ones somewhere on the waterfront or on Terminal Ave

Are you sure you are referring to the same road? Because the PPS report has a before and an after picture. The after picture shows a surface street.

The similarity I was referring to was historical, btw.

Originally Posted by http://www.pps.org/reference/conversion-of-park-east-freeway-sparks-economic-revitalization

Despite public protest, starting in the 1960’s freeways were built around more than half of Milwaukee’s central business district. However, enough opposition emerged to stop one freeway, the Park East, from reaching completion. A 0.8-mile elevated section that was built ran from 12th Street to N Jefferson Street and separated Milwaukee’s north side from the rest of its redeveloping downtown. The freeway was planned to extend east to the Lake Michigan and then run south along the shore.

And although Price Tags is assuredly a biased source, they did not prepare the report I had linked. So I would think it could be judged on it's own merit.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Interesting commentary from Avision Young on the matter.

Which perfectly addresses the lack of foresight of those who boast about "winning" the freeway battle in the 1970's. They ignored goods movement, and as Avison Young points out, that heavy traffic gets diverted onto a myriad of city streets.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

Are you sure you are referring to the same road? Because the PPS report has a before and an after picture. The after picture shows a surface street.

The similarity I was referring to was historical, btw.



And although Price Tags is assuredly a biased source, they did not prepare the report I had linked. So I would think it could be judged on it's own merit.

Yes I'm sure its the same road. I wasn't referring to the immediate area rather I was pointing out that Milwaukee had recently enhanced their freeways (in a manner that would make most here poop their pants) nearby which made that specific section of road redundant. Such a situation does not exist in Vancouver (seeing as we only concentrate on eliminating roads rather than **gasp** enhancing them)

The "PPS" is an organization who is pushing an agenda and is exaggerating the successes of that particular area. Again, was in that area about 6 weeks ago, although better than what was there before; in the roughly ten years since the road was decommissioned, only a small fraction of the land available has been developed, and the area is a far cry from what such groups would have u believe.

In Vancouver terms, although the viaducts were part of a larger never built freeway plan,they served a useful and valuable purpose as a major road in and out of downtown. The Milwaukee road was never this. Heck, even some of the NEW elevated roads in Milwaukee might not carry as much traffic as our viaducts do. Apples to oranges.

[Sir Conga]

Fair points, thank you for the reasoned reply, Mark.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

Fair points, thank you for the reasoned reply, Mark.