Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Pinion]

I would love for the viaducts to be removed if I lived four blocks from them, too.

I never use them as it is, but they divert cars away from my east-west route because - surprise - viaducts are faster than street-level residential areas with tons of intersections. Even the pro-removal people admit my route through Vancouver will get worse when they're gone.

[jlousa]

I do live a couple of blocks from the viaducts and would hate to see additional traffic dumped back onto the surface streets like they were during the olympics. I don't see how removal will improve my quality of life as I can now access False Creek and Olympic village on foot w/o dodging a major stroad. I do not use the viaducts personally but I do benefit from them being there.

[moosejaw]

While i do agree the viaducts are an eyesore, they do have an impact on the Downtown cores traffic. Removing them would just bring additional traffic to the street. If they are removed, i would like to see the land around used for something other than more condos.

I'm sure its been suggested before, but i would like to see a twin bored tunnel in place of it. While i don't think it would happen and at most its a pipe dream. A tunnel could be done from Malkin underneath Main street and pop up on Georgia. Make it tolled tunnel similar to Melbourne, even a loon or toon. Cities across america are turning to toll existing roads to pay for them...IE Seattle, Miami, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Richmond VA.

Im sure the tunnel idea is not/wont be in the plans for COV. But's its a thought

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

What the hell are you going on about? Either you merely skimmed my comment, or your reading comprehension is quite low.

Let me break it down for you.

My most recent comment was saying there have been well reasoned, coherent arguments made for the pro-viaducts side. Some how you inferred the opposite. Saying the only reasons to be pro-removal are being an anti-car urbanista or developer-lover is a snarky over-simplification based off nothing but assumption. That trofirhen latched on to it should be no surprise... I don't think it was on point....

Some people apparently need oversimplification. And if I'm making an assumption on the motive, pray enlighten us all on the burning reason for Meggs & Co. to spend up to $100 million on this pet project.

[Sir Conga]

I can certainly share what I think are valid reasons to remove the Viaducts. I can't speak for Meggs and co, but there is plenty of info out there for their rationale. As far as I remember, this pet project would not necessarily cost a hundred million dollars, as the sale of city land will offset that quite substantially.

First I feel I must re-state my position. I think the Viaducts should remain in place for as long as their reasonable lifespan. I think eventually one or maybe both should be removed, and we should be planning for that eventuality. I am not a stubborn zealot with my views, and I absolutely think there are great reasons to leave them be. My issue at times with the discussion in this thread is the idea that anyone that is pro-removal must have ulterior motives or must be some deluded anti-car hippie.

So here are what I would call valid reasons for removing the viaducts:

The main reasons for the viaducts in that area do not exist anymore. No freeway was built to use the full capacity. The land underneath is now somewhat developed, so a raised roadway is no longer absolutely necessary.

They are only around four blocks long! If they were longer, I could see how being able to by-pass intersections would increase efficiency if there were more than two or three.

I don't like them. I think they are a bit of an eye-sore. I don't hate them, and I actually love using the bike lane to get in to downtown. I just think the area would look a lot nicer without them, especially when the surrounding area (especially creekside park) is developed. The eye-sore is mainly underneath the Viaducts and around the escarpments, so I know that could certainly be addressed without removal.

I think the proposal that won the viaducts idea competition is great, and an improvement. Especially in regards to Georgia Street.

I'm not pro-developer, but I sure am pro-development. So the idea of that area being used better (subjective, I know) resonates with me.

I also sincerely believe we are heading in to different times. Driverless automated cars are the future. Safety and efficient use of road-space will be the result. The increasing emphasis on town-centres and walkable communities will hopefully result in people living closer to work.

-------
I firmly believe that removing them must make sense for the region and not just the immediate area. With that in mind, I don't think they should be removed without addressing concerns with the movement of goods, and the impact on streets like Prior/Venables. If studies proved the removal impractical for the region, I would absolutely accept that.
-----

So those are the main reasons I see for potential removal.

I don't think anyone will read this and change their stance on removal, and that's not my intent. I merely believe there are a few legit reasons to remove them. Perhaps there are more and/or better reasons to keep'em, but that argument is not served by completely dismissing opposing views. Which was really the only point I was trying to make the other day. I am far from an expert on the issues that frame this decision, so you can certainly view my opinions as those of a layman.

[spm2013]

....

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by spm2013

I think they should tear them down because I'm afraid of heights.

then close your eyes!

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by spm2013

I think they should tear them down because I'm afraid of heights.

Probably the most rational reason given so far in favor of demolition.

[Sir Conga]

Well,.. glad I took the time to respond.

[mr.x]

Idealism at its best. Lacking a balance with what's actually real and practical that works in the actual world.

[rsxstock]

i like having a viaduct and actually wish there are more along with some tunnels because having layers seem to make the city more interesting than being on a single plain

however, i dont like how this one was designed. it's taking up too much space and the void underneath isn't being used efficiently

[dreambrother808]

Walking around Gastown, Crosstown and Chinatown last night, I was struck by how much life these areas have now. So many people out and about, walking mostly, enjoying all that there is to offer. It really spoke to me about how the viaducts' removal could expand that energy. This isn't just an area to minimize someone's commute. People live here. People come here to experience the varied textures of these communities. There is great potential to extend that fabric to False Creek and create something even richer.

[spm2013]

....

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Walking around Gastown, Crosstown and Chinatown last night, I was struck by how much life these areas have now. So many people out and about, walking mostly, enjoying all that there is to offer. It really spoke to me about how the viaducts' removal could expand that energy. This isn't just an area to minimize someone's commute. People live here. People come here to experience the varied textures of these communities. There is great potential to extend that fabric to False Creek and create something even richer.

How would you add to the richness when all the traffic that was previously on the viaducts is now being directed through these mainly pedestrian neighbourhoods? Look at how the surface traffic has caused the issues in Strathcona along Pender. Something similar will happen to Main and Hastings and is something a resident of Gastown, our own Jlousa, is vocally concerned about.

If it were possible to integrate the viaducts better into the neighbourhood, would you consider that an option? Because I believe that it is a possibility. It simply hasn't been given credit or any thought by the CoV.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by spm2013

The existence of the viaducts has created the vibrancy in those areas, therefore removing it would kill that energy.

And you make this speculation based upon what?

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

If it were possible to integrate the viaducts better into the neighbourhood, would you consider that an option?

I am in favour of exploring all kinds of possibilities, yes. I just don't believe that the outcome of their removal will be as problematic as some do.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I just don't believe that the outcome of their removal will be as problematic as some do.

And you make this speculation based upon what?

[spm2013]

....

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by spm2013

Ouija board

This is why this thread and forum are often unbearable. Even when you try to have a respectful conversation, people turn it into childish garbage.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

And you make this speculation based upon what?

I have already stated, it is a belief, not necessarily a fact.

As for my reasons, the routes that the traffic will be diverted to don't seem overly-burdened in their current roles. The capacity is there, especially with the planned road adjustments. Will it be as convenient for some as the viaducts are? No, but it won't be as difficult an adjustment as some might believe. From my perspective, the benefits outweigh the negatives.

It's funny because all of the virulent and rude opposition to the viaducts' removal actually pushed me further in this direction. I tend not to side with that kind of behaviour.