Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by spm2013

I love this gem:

That's because the Province is responsible for the cost of remediation.
There are similar repositories under Andy Livingston Park and David Lam Park. The cost of soil removal was too high. It is just entombed under the parklands and monitored.

[Canadian Mind]

This really does stink. Is there any active groups against this yet? Maybe someone should write an article to the local media highlighting what a tripe this has become.

What is the deal with the park? Are they selling the land, turning it into a park, or both?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by idunno

While maybe you can doubt some of the financial side of things, the perceived efficiency/traffic problems are the source of most of the opposition to this project.

Are you guys really ignoring the traffic engineering study (later in the report) where it is repeatedly shown that a) The new Pacific Blvd will have the capacity for future traffic demand and b) that neighbouring streets will not have to handle much, if any new vehicles?

Their last 2 versions had no mention of the "conservative option".


Source: Old CoV report.

The previous version, which was shown at the open houses used different numbers. I can imagine they're playing with the variables a bit, but their spread of numbers shows that they're not sure, and that they're picking the optimistic ones.

I also think their assumptions are ludicrous. Evergreen likely won't make a dent in this traffic flow. At peak, their diagram shows about 190 cars coming from anywhere near the Evergreen line. I also don't think traffic will continue to trend downwards. Driving will get much cheaper over the next decade as EVs become commonplace.

They make no mention of what normal peak traffic is in their diagream. I doubt it's 900 cars less than their "conservative" peak is.

[Canadian Mind]

Really, the only way I could see them decreasing the traffic flow is an extension of the Expo out of Waterfront to at least the freeway, with a massive park and ride & bus terminal. But considering that there is still a Broadway extension and Langley extension in the pipe, I doubt we'll see a Hastings line any time soon.

Viaducts or no viaducts, is a new station with a park & ride along the WCE route possible?

[cornholio]

This will all catch up with these people eventually. But in the meantime I hope this turns on them before the damage is done. If only I had more time my self...

By the way those numbers they released look criminal as is, especially the costs.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Agree 100% with you WarrenC12. People that use "low voter turnout" as an excuse to argue the elected government shouldn't make decisions seem to assume everyone that didn't show up or cast a vote would have voted against electing the government.

They go "Oh look 35% of people voted, and Vision got 55% of the vote so they really only got 19% of people voting for them!" as if they had 81% against them.

Truth is, if you don't vote you get no say in my books. People want to complain about the decisions of elected officials... GO 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 WELL VOTE... or shut up.

Vision has been elected into office in Vancouver and they can clearly govern the way they feel the electorate wants them to govern. If you want a referendum, ralley the troops and petition city hall. If they don't listen to you, get out and vote against them next election.

Don't use voter turnout as an excuse. Statistics have shown in other jurisdictions that when voter turn out goes up, the final results don't actually change much and in almost every instance, the same elected officials would get into office.

It's just a myth that those against elected officials drum up as an excuse. I happen to think Vision is whacko and Greggor has done more bad than good for the City of Vancouver, but he was elected into office TWICE so far, so much like George W Bush, the majority seem to think he is doing fine and/or agree with his decisions.

Back onto topic....

I still think taking down the viaducts it silly.

Thats not true. You are confusing voter turnout with a sample of a voter turnout. i.e. once 5-10% of the ballots are counted the result will generally not change by the the time you count 100% of the ballot. However when 37% of the voters turnout you will get different results then when 95% of the voters turnout because you are essentially reducing the number of voter groups, not voters within groups.

Regardless municipal politics in Canada are overall corrupt and should be completely reworked. But I have been saying this for years, many years now.

[theKB]

Listening to Meggs on Bill Good this morning not a single person speaks to the issue of going from zero intersection to at least five is a huge issue in terms of flow. Also the costs seem to have gone up to roughly 130 million now.

[spm2013]

....

[WBC]

My take on it is that delay = no $$$. This is the same as the downtown tram. It would be nice to have if somebody else paid for it, but nobody else will. So it is always being "studied"...

And yes they can sell the land, but in order to do that they have to remove the viaducts first and than clean up the land (which takes a lot of time) and than they can sell it...That takes time...Does City of Vancouver want to finance 130 mill up front? I am not so sure about that (see Olympic village).

[officedweller]

Speaking of the downtown tram, is there space for it on the "super-road"?

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Thats not true. You are confusing voter turnout with a sample of a voter turnout. i.e. once 5-10% of the ballots are counted the result will generally not change by the the time you count 100% of the ballot. However when 37% of the voters turnout you will get different results then when 95% of the voters turnout because you are essentially reducing the number of voter groups, not voters within groups.

Regardless municipal politics in Canada are overall corrupt and should be completely reworked. But I have been saying this for years, many years now.

Very true. The people who turn out and vote, especially in lower key elections such as municipal elections and by-elections, are typically more passionate and more 'extreme’ in their views than the general population.

It would be great if Vancouver were able to develop a system whereby municipal elections could be conducted online or by mail to increase voter turnout. I don't believe you have to be a citizen to vote in mayoral elections, and providing proof of address would be very easy (especially if given a mail ballot).

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Yes I love how the city claims traffic is falling in some reports but in others it shows it's rising. Here is another set of numbers from the city's own report on active transportation. They were supposed to show how percentage wise bikes and pedestrian travel is up, and it certainly is, and while car travel is certainly down percentage wise... it is also clearly increasing in total numbers. So I guess if we are being told that the new Pacific Blvd is able to carry the traffic of the current Georgia viaduct/Dunsmuir viaduct/Expo Blvd and Pacific Blvd all wrapped into one. That can certainly be the case, I for one don't envy having to cross that street on a regular basis though.



Source Via Pricetags (not exactly a car friendly site)
http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/vancouver-driving-drops-again/

I've read the report twice so far, and I can't see anything that says the re-aligned New Pacific Blvd will need -x- lanes to replace the viaduct lanes and maintain current traffic to/from Main St and Quebec St.


I'm thinking that someone already realises that a 6- or 8-lane boulevard (no matter how nicely landscaped) is going to be a barrier between Gastown, Chinatown, DTES &tc on the north side and the new park on the south side.

[spm2013]

....

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Speaking of the downtown tram, is there space for it on the "super-road"?

The word "streetcar" appears in the report twice (both in the same sentence) regarding how many people want to see it implemented in the near term. That is all. No mention of intentions/plans.

"Bus" appears 6 times, in regards to potential increased travel times and improved potential bus connections. No mentions of anything specific regarding impact on buses (new routes, increase in ridership, travel times).

"Transit" does appear 31 times. But mostly regarding pipe dreams like "staff would work with Translink to investigate opportunities for transit
optimisation and priority measures to mitigate the impacts". So in other words they have no actual plans/ideas on what's going to happen when the viaducts are removed. Just assumptions.

Bike appears 12 times, bicycle 3 times.

Walk appears 7 times.

And for comparison, "viaduct" appears 229 times. Now that is to be expected, they are the subject of the report. But in regards to the viaducts they mention Transit, Bus, bike, walking, and streetcars so few times. How much have they actually planned vs how much is just nonsense lip-service rabble in support of tearing them down.

"Traffic" appears 73 times, so the report just looks like an apology piece saying there will be no "traffic" problems without any proof or concrete alternatives or plans for getting people around. I guess it will just happen on it's own?

"Condo" appears zero times. Interesting. I guess it is better to call them "housing units", which they say there will be only 1000 new ones. So all this work and money, for 1000 extra units. I don't understand how you can value 1000 units greater than the utility of tens of thousands of vehicle users a day.

[spm2013]

....

[logan5]

Originally Posted by theKB

Listening to Meggs on Bill Good this morning not a single person speaks to the issue of going from zero intersection to at least five is a huge issue in terms of flow. Also the costs seem to have gone up to roughly 130 million now.

A widened Pacific Blvd would replace 1 km of elevated highway, so over 1km you'd expect a traffic light maybe every 300 metres, so 3 traffic lights, which should be fine. Right now the viaducts serve as a very short expressway from stop and go traffic to more stop and go traffic. I'm not so sure having to deal with a few extra traffic lights out of the many that drivers face each day will make any difference at all.

While it will certainly take more time than it used to for east bound drivers to get out of downtown, traffic will be metered out of downtown in a more balanced way, instead of an overload of traffic being poured onto city streets. Facing a few extra signals will lengthen your trip out of downtown by 2 minutes, but because the traffic load is more evenly spread out, there is less congestion on city streets up ahead. All the viaducts do is get you to a longer line up of traffic... sooner.

There will always be traffic delays no matter what. The viaducts just put them in a different spot.

[rsxstock]

if they can make it 1 way with sync'ed green lights like coming off cambie street, they it might be possible. i wish they could just do something creative like small overpasses or tunnels to eliminate the lights

[West22]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I've read the report twice so far, and I can't see anything that says the re-aligned New Pacific Blvd will need -x- lanes to replace the viaduct lanes and maintain current traffic to/from Main St and Quebec St.


I'm thinking that someone already realises that a 6- or 8-lane boulevard (no matter how nicely landscaped) is going to be a barrier between Gastown, Chinatown, DTES &tc on the north side and the new park on the south side.

I think this is quite remarkable. The city has long stated that the future growth in traffic within the downtown core needs to be by "sustainable" means. The data JLousa quotes shows that 120,000 of the 127,000 growth in daily trips from 2008 to 2011 was by sustainable modes. That is a 94.5% success rate.

To me this says that the city is on the right track to ensure that there is sufficient and proper infrastructure to allow for continued growth of sustainable trips. We can't build more roads for more cars in downtown, but we can build better infrastructure to support the rapid growth of sustainable transportation in the city centre.

To complement the removal of the viaducts (which I support), I would like to see an extension of the Expo Line to the East along Hastings St., and the development of the downtown streetcar from Granville Island to Stanley Park, and also to VCC Stn.

My position: I drive whenever it is too inconvenient to ride my bike. The more convenient and comfortable it is to cycle, the less I will drive.

[Sir Conga]

From this Wednesdays' 24hrs.

More parks and affordable housing units could sprout up in the concrete-covered areas beneath Vancouver’s downtown viaducts if the 41-year-old spans are dismantled, according to a staff report going before city council Tuesday.

Removing the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts would create about three hectares of land — or just under four CFL-sized football fields — in between the Strathcona neighbourhood and the downtown core.

“The potential is enormous and the addition of this five acres of park space is just priceless,” Coun. Geoff Meggs said.

“You simply can’t create land like that in the downtown core, especially for park purposes.”

Tearing down the viaducts would also give the city the opportunity to develop about 1,000 housing units — at least 200 to 300 of which would be devoted to affordable housing.

Taking the overpasses down and creating a new street network is estimated to cost between $115 and $132 million during the next five to 10 years. But the city estimates the value of the land beneath the viaducts to be worth $100 to $110 million, while maintaining them could cost as much as $132 million during the next 40 years.

Meggs said the report’s proposed street replacement network would be a “powerful improvement” that could link such heritage neighbourhoods as Chinatown, Strathcona and Downtown Eastside.

City staff is asking council to approve the next phase of consultations and planning before any vote is held on approving the viaducts’ removal

[huenthar]

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

Taking the overpasses down and creating a new street network is estimated to cost between $115 and $132 million during the next five to 10 years. But the city estimates the value of the land beneath the viaducts to be worth $100 to $110 million, while maintaining them could cost as much as $132 million during the next 40 years.

wow what a blatant falsehood. The report breakdown states that more than half of that "132 million" to "maintain" the viaducts is the cost of building new ones in 40 years. The actual "maintenance" costs in the report is less than half that amount. It's like saying the cost of maintaining the current Massey Tunnel is $3 billion (includes the cost of replacing it in 40 years) in order to promote building a new bridge costing $2.8 billion immediately. Meanwhile, where are the maintenance costs for a new super-road? It will need maintenance over the next 40 years too! And what is the value of the land as-is? It might not be 100 million but it's a whole lot more than nothing!

For those on the board who generally support the removal of the viaducts: do you agree that there is a lot of fact-fudging in these reports, and that this is not the way to go about the process if in fact the viaduct removal idea has genuine merit?