Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Pinion]

My brain and eyes cannot accept that "1960s levels of cars" claim. I'm old enough to remember when Vancouver didn't have traffic issues, and it gets worse year after year. There has to be some data fudging.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Pinion

My brain and eyes cannot accept that "1960s levels of cars" claim. I'm old enough to remember when Vancouver didn't have traffic issues, and it gets worse year after year. There has to be some data fudging.

What are your thoughts on climate change?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by IanS

In fairness, we did just have an election which Vision won. It was obvious to anyone paying attention that the decision to take down the viaducts was made years ago and, notwithstanding that, Vision won. That's democracy; we get what we deserve.

Well, and the sad reality is that they won't be taking responsibility for the mess they create once booted out of office come next election.
I might've agreed with some of their other platforms, but absolutely not this one.

Originally Posted by Pinion

My brain and eyes cannot accept that "1960s levels of cars" claim. I'm old enough to remember when Vancouver didn't have traffic issues, and it gets worse year after year. There has to be some data fudging.

Absolutely! I'm pretty sure those are not independent surveys, but City sponsored ones.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Well, and the sad reality is that they won't be taking responsibility for the mess they create once booted out of office come next election.

Funny people said the same thing about the bike lanes around the 2011 election, then again at the 2014 election.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Funny people said the same thing about the bike lanes around the 2011 election, then again at the 2014 election.

I like bike lanes.... They take care of cyclists, but that doesn't mean car and other vehicle drivers should be sidelined.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What are your thoughts on climate change?

I acknowledge it exists because I have seen evidence to support it.

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by Pinion

My brain and eyes cannot accept that "1960s levels of cars" claim. I'm old enough to remember when Vancouver didn't have traffic issues, and it gets worse year after year. There has to be some data fudging.

Your brain and eyes are clouded by your bias then.

I live in the City and I can tell you that it is not getting any worse. I commute into the 'burbs eveyday and have for the last seven years. The Vancouver portion of my drive hasn't changed in that time. The Suburban portion on the other hand is getting crazy.

As an aside, my family is all on the north shore. That is some crazy traffic. Once the cut fills up everything else is totally stuck.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

As an aside, my family is all on the north shore. That is some crazy traffic. Once the cut fills up everything else is totally stuck.

North Shore traffic isn't independent from the rest of the region. Lions Gate is bad because the City of Vancouver won't allow it to be better.

What is my bias? You think I like sitting in traffic?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

Your brain and eyes are clouded by your bias then.

I live in the City and I can tell you that it is not getting any worse. I commute into the 'burbs eveyday and have for the last seven years. The Vancouver portion of my drive hasn't changed in that time. The Suburban portion on the other hand is getting crazy.

As an aside, my family is all on the north shore. That is some crazy traffic. Once the cut fills up everything else is totally stuck.

I've lived downtown since 1994 and, in my view, the traffic has been getting steadily worse over the last several years.

I do agree with your observations about North Van and second narrows. It's getting crazy how busy that is.

[p78hub]

"Not getting any worse" doesn't mean that traffic still isn't terrible. But in my eyes, it's definitely getting worse. Northbound traffic on Granville at 1:30PM on a Thursday shouldn't be backed up from Broadway to 33rd, but it is. It shouldn't take 10 minutes to cross Knight Street on 49th Avenue, but somehow it does.

I honestly get the impression sometimes that City Hall forgets that there's a Vancouver and an entire region east of Main and south of 41st, and the viaduct removal doesn't help that impression. The Skytrain is becoming more and more unreliable, Hastings has a 30km/h speed limit, and 1st/Terminal slows to a crawl from Nanaimo onwards. Is widening Pacific really going to help? I don't think so.

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by Pinion

North Shore traffic isn't independent from the rest of the region. Lions Gate is bad because the City of Vancouver won't allow it to be better.

What is my bias? You think I like sitting in traffic?

You are adamant that the viaducts should remain, and you stated that you can't believe statistics collected by professionals over decades because they don’t align with your beliefs. I think your bias is plain to see.

For the record I am not strongly in favour of removing them, I think there are drawbacks and benefits to both scenarios. I just think that talk about traffic chaos is overblown. The viaducts will be replaced with a new road. Its not like they are removing the capacity altogether.

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by p78hub

"Not getting any worse" doesn't mean that traffic still isn't terrible. But in my eyes, it's definitely getting worse. Northbound traffic on Granville at 1:30PM on a Thursday shouldn't be backed up from Broadway to 33rd, but it is. It shouldn't take 10 minutes to cross Knight Street on 49th Avenue, but somehow it does.

I honestly get the impression sometimes that City Hall forgets that there's a Vancouver and an entire region east of Main and south of 41st, and the viaduct removal doesn't help that impression. The Skytrain is becoming more and more unreliable, Hastings has a 30km/h speed limit, and 1st/Terminal slows to a crawl from Nanaimo onwards. Is widening Pacific really going to help? I don't think so.

Well I can't speak to those specific intersections but you are showing the absurdity of the viaducts in the first place. The Surface streets are only able to deliver a certain number of vehicles per hour to the structures. people patiently work your way through the city to the viaducts, then hammer it to 80 km /hour for 10 seconds, and then stop again at the other end. I don't understand why people are so invested in that little thrill.

So it takes 33 minutes to get downtown from Burnaby or North Van instead of 30? I honestly don't see that as a major catastrophe.

[EastVanMark]

Traffic downtown has definitely gotten worse. A LOT worse. Areas in and around Robson Square, Burrard Bridge, and Georgia/Dunsmuir streets are some of the worst spots.

As for the viaducts, they almost never had any kind of traffic before all the changes. Now its commonplace. Also, if there is an event going on; fugget about it. 10 minute waits stretching back to Main Street are a common occurrence.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

Well I can't speak to those specific intersections but you are showing the absurdity of the viaducts in the first place. The Surface streets are only able to deliver a certain number of vehicles per hour to the structures. people patiently work your way through the city to the viaducts, then hammer it to 80 km /hour for 10 seconds, and then stop again at the other end. I don't understand why people are so invested in that little thrill.

So it takes 33 minutes to get downtown from Burnaby or North Van instead of 30? I honestly don't see that as a major catastrophe.

I'm surprised you and some others still believe in the spin that going through the surface streets without the viaducts is going to take only an extra 3 minutes. If you look at the older proposal of the surface street, traffic would have to go through about 8 intersections. Now tell me, unless you go through a green wave every single time (probably that's what the City based the "study" on), how do you expect that it would only take an extra 3 minutes? Come on, seriously? Say if you are unlucky and meet a red light every single time, even if the wait is 1 minute each, that would still be 8 extra minutes, and that is not factoring in the back-ups due to so many intersections.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by Vin

I'm surprised you and some others still believe in the spin that going through the surface streets without the viaducts is going to take only an extra 3 minutes. If you look at the older proposal of the surface street, traffic would have to go through about 8 intersections. Now tell me, unless you go through a green wave every single time (probably that's what the City based the "study" on), how do you expect that it would only take an extra 3 minutes? Come on, seriously? Say if you are unlucky and meet a red light every single time, even if the wait is 1 minute each, that would still be 8 extra minutes, and that is not factoring in the back-ups due to so many intersections.

I have had the same thoughts. I agree with you too on them basing the study on driving straight through each intersection without having to stop for a light, almost like you were driving on some sort of elevated structure that went over all the intersections.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Vin

Now tell me, unless you go through a green wave every single time (probably that's what the City based the "study" on), how do you expect that it would only take an extra 3 minutes?

On the relatively rare occasions that I do drive downtown, I most often access it via the Dunsmuir viaduct. And by gosh I'm usually able to drive along Dunsmuir from Beatty to Burrard with only one stop light. It takes about 3 minutes, and it's about the same amount of distance as the viaducts are. And leaving town via Georgia eastbound is a very similar experience.

Don't discount the power of the "green wave" to expedite traffic.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by nefc

Here is some new presentation material: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/viaducts-information-technical-findings-july-2015.pdf

from: http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/viaducts-study.aspx

Looking at the 15Jul info PDF, I noticed there are lanes for streetcar along both sides of the revamped Pacific Blvd.

Wouldn't having to dodge streetcars as well as 7 lanes of traffic be a bit of an inconvenience to get to the new park?

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Wouldn't having to dodge streetcars...

Surely it'll be easier to train the streetcar drivers to stop at red lights so pedestrians don't have to "dodge" them. Maybe I'm asking too much.

[Sheba]

Looking at the info PDF, it seems they want to turn the Georgia Viaduct into a ramp along Griffiths Way to join up with Pacific Blvd, and remove the Prior St connection to the Dunsmuir Viaduct and have it start at Main St as a bike path and sidewalk. Plus add in a new street to join up with the extended Carrall St and add some bike paths.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

As WarrenC12 pointed out, that is simply not true.

"Logic" would probably have dictated that in the 1960's too, but it didn't happen.

As cities get bigger and denser the need for mass transit increases and the idea of "cars for everyone" just doesn't work anymore.

Maybe its just my IT background and working from home majority of my days but I don't think the future supports dense over populated cities. I believe they will start becoming increasingly inefficient and people will once again begin to spread out as there end up being less jobs, and more virtual jobs, and improved mobility in the forms of shared, driver-less, networked vehicles operating on more efficient grids in a environment where peak times are less defined due to my first points. Downtown's will once again age, and become un economical to invest in, rebuilt or maintain, nor will they be pleasant to live in.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What are your thoughts on climate change?

Climates change and evidence would show that we are likely a major contributor to current changes. I think we will technologically advance our way out of any resulting problems through increasing productivity/efficiency or die trying.