Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5
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.
|
+1
I strongly support the removal of the viaducts. The current viaducts are just 1km long, both ends are small capacity roads. I don't see why it actually should exist! I also don't see tearing down the viaducts would have any impacts at all to the traffic.
Also if the viaducts are down, people would choose Pender, Hastings or Cambie to enter downtown, because the new Pacific would be no more attractive than these streets unlike when the viaducts are up. So the result would be much more evenly distributed traffic in and out of downtown.
It's a proven fact that faster/wider road attracts traffic. The more freeway you build, the more traffic jam it generates. That's because freeways are more attractive to drivers and thus more drivers want to drive on them. But even with the current road network, most of the time the viaducts are still pretty empty. I think that's because the road network on two ends do not have enough capacity.
Why they should be torn down immediately? Because that waste land has been sitting there for quite some time. The decision to remove or not will likely affect this area indefinitely. Without tearing down the viaducts, new buildings cannot start - if they are to start building, they have to build around the viaducts and thus seal the fate of this area. Even 30 years later city planners decide to remove the viaducts, it would be very difficult as everything will already be built around it.
However, as a future plan, I do support building a tunnel under False Creek, linking Georgia St and Terminal Av. The flats will have a lot of new developments in the future and the whole east side is densifying fast. In the long term, more capacity to downtown is needed. But the viaducts cannot do the job in long term - the east end is just too narrow and go through residential streets and Strathcona residents are already protesting current traffic level. But terminal would be so much better - it goes through future office area (already some office buildings in the area) and it's wide and it connects to Highway 1.
So my plan:
Step 1. Remove the viaducts now to prepare for NEFC redevelopment
Step 2. Short term - create a new ground street for east-bound traffic
Step 3. Long term - create a short tunnel under False Creek linking Georgia and Terminal for east-bound traffic.
Prev
Linear Mode
