Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I think everyone needs to come to grips with the fact that this is going to happen, albeit over the medium term, with the entire project being complete by 2020.

Absolutely. The viaducts' fate was sealed when Vision won the last election.

Personally, I'm coming to grips with it by accelerating (slightly) my plan to move out of the area to be affected.

... and life will continue.

Strong point. Life will, as you say, continue.

Applying that standard to the discussion, no gov't in the history of the world has ever made a bad decision or followed a flawed policy because, of course, life continued.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Just how did their predictions fare better than most? Golden Ears, Port Mann provided actual figures while the City of Vancouver provided questionable metrics open-ended catchphrases like "people just got used to it" (in regards to major road changes on the Burrard Bridge), "only 3 minutes longer per average commute" (Burrard Bridge again), again while providing questionable "evidence" (or in some cases no evidence at all). Cornwall street was an attempted snowjob where they again tried the old "people seem to be getting used to the changes" card.

This 1 measly km of elevated freeway we are talking about here.

That 3 minute prediction has to be pretty close. Given 3 minutes, you would have average only 20 km/h along Pacific to get through that 1 km stretch that the viaducts use to cover. That doesn't include the road improvements such as the Malkin Connector and improved traffic flow stemming from improved traffic metering out of downtown. The 3 minute figure has to be a worst case scenario. Don't be surprised if there is no lost commute time.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by IanS

Applying that standard to the discussion, no gov't in the history of the world has ever made a bad decision or followed a flawed policy because, of course, life continued.

I wouldn't say that.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I wouldn't say that.

Yeah, but to paraphrase the earlier posted "life will continue". And it did.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I think everyone needs to come to grips with the fact that this is going to happen, albeit over the medium term, with the entire project being complete by 2020.

I too await the financial picture, including the potential increased revenue by taxation and how the Skytrain will fit into the new developments in the area.

Arguing over the reality of future commuting times is pointless. Traffic will adapt, TomTom will no doubt continue their flawed studies, and life will continue.

Nothing in this world is set in stone.

Originally Posted by logan5

This 1 measly km of elevated freeway we are talking about here.

That 3 minute prediction has to be pretty close. Given 3 minutes, you would have average only 20 km/h along Pacific to get through that 1 km stretch that the viaducts use to cover. That doesn't include the road improvements such as the Malkin Connector and improved traffic flow stemming from improved traffic metering out of downtown. The 3 minute figure has to be a worst case scenario. Don't be surprised if there is no lost commute time.

1km is not measly at all.

Can the City give us the assurance that the Malkin Connector would be built? Even if it is, the Malkin Connector would work way better with the viaducts than without. So, instead of spending 3 minutes more on the surface streets, one could be saving 10mins using the Malkin Conn. AND the viaducts. That's how we improve road network by reducing the time spent, not adding more.

[WarrenC12]

I think what frustrates me is that every "pro car" argument, from the new bridge traffic projections, to the predictions of horribly delay and business loss from bike lanes, have turned out to be completely wrong.

The viaducts is a different beast, but I see the same people coming out of the wood work with the same tired arguments that haven't been right yet.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Vin

Can the City give us the assurance that the Malkin Connector would be built? Even if it is, the Malkin Connector would work way better with the viaducts than without. So, instead of spending 3 minutes more on the surface streets, one could be saving 10mins using the Malkin Conn. AND the viaducts. That's how we improve road network by reducing the time spent, not adding more.

I've been without the interwebs for a couple weeks.

They said they'd like to but they can't when they were dealing with the Strathcona Residents Assoc.

The city only paid 3.5% for the Powell overpass and they don't feel like they should pay more than that for Malkin. So, they basically aren't willing to connect the two projects. The SRA seemed to be leaning towards insisting that they be part of the same package.

They think this whole thing is going to be revenue neutral The only way that will happen is if there's almost no social housing in the two redeveloped blocks and they have zoning for immense buildings.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I've been without the interwebs for a couple weeks.

They said they'd like to but they can't when they were dealing with the Strathcona Residents Assoc.

The city only paid 3.5% for the Powell overpass and they don't feel like they should pay more than that for Malkin. So, they basically aren't willing to connect the two projects. The SRA seemed to be leaning towards insisting that they be part of the same package.

They think this whole thing is going to be revenue neutral The only way that will happen is if there's almost not social housing in the two developed blocks and they don't make the buildings immense.

Hmm, so much for traffic improvement after the viaducts come down.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I've been without the interwebs for a couple weeks.

They said they'd like to but they can't when they were dealing with the Strathcona Residents Assoc.

The city only paid 3.5% for the Powell overpass and they don't feel like they should pay more than that for Malkin. So, they basically aren't willing to connect the two projects. The SRA seemed to be leaning towards insisting that they be part of the same package.

They think this whole thing is going to be revenue neutral The only way that will happen is if there's almost no social housing in the two redeveloped blocks and they have zoning for immense buildings.

That land surely must be worth way more than the cost of deconstructing the viaducts and reconfiguring Pacific.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

...which proved to be so optimistic as to throw the financial plan into question.It certainly looks to me as though the City's predictions came far closer to reality than the doomsayers' did.

Ya no doubt the Port Mann and Golden Ears numbers proved to overly optimistic. However, they did provide actual figures. Did the City of Vancouver provide any figures for their projects either before, during or after their completion? Did the doomsayers? Just saying it either was or wasn't "carmageddon" or "people got used to it" is far too ambiguous and leaves us little to nothing for the general public.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

Exactly.

EastVanMarK where is your proof that these things didn't work? People do get used to it. There haven't been massive traffic jams and gridlock resulting from any of these projects.

Your statement that these other projects in North america are different than the viaducts is certainly correct. The viaducts aren't connected to anything! You average 30 km /hour at one end. You go 80 km/hour for 45 seconds. Then you average 30 km/hour again. The level of commitment to the idea that this will be doomsday is beyond me.

Edit: Ref to North America

I don't have any hard numbers. That's exactly my point. they don't seem to exist.
Also, I love you call for proof and in the very next sentence start with just repeating the same baseless statements such as "people got used to it". Where's your proof of that?

Well, if I'm not mistaken nobody here is calling for doomsday. They just don't like the idea of mutilating perfectly good infrastructure and trying to pass off that the difference in traffic is no big deal. It most certainly is, has been in the past, and will be in the future.

Under the old setup of the viaducts and surrounding roadways you didn't go 30km to 80km, back to 30km again. But since they removed lanes now you certainly do. During rushour and event days, its more like 30km, 10km, 30km. Once the viaducts go, those times will get worse, rush hour will be longer (as identified in the article by the former transportation manger), and event days will see even longer delays. Will life come to an end in the city? No. But that doesn't make it a good idea either.

The level of extreme "all or nothing" viewpoints which appears to so rampant in this city is beyond me.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

For the record, here are the actual figures for the Port Mann traffic level predictions:


[Source: Gordon Price]

So yes, you're right in that actual figures were provided for Port Mann traffic predictions, but those predictions were way off.

Yes. Thank you for providing those. My point was although the figures were off, at least they provided some. The City of Vancouver's appear to be more abstract and more qualitative in nature. (stories as opposed to actual figures)
Did the city of Vancouver provide traffic counts for their projects before during and after they were completed (of ALL affected streets in the area)? Or did they do the usual and cherry pick or just release vague statements like "people got used to it" which means absolutely nothing

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by logan5

This 1 measly km of elevated freeway we are talking about here.

That 3 minute prediction has to be pretty close. Given 3 minutes, you would have average only 20 km/h along Pacific to get through that 1 km stretch that the viaducts use to cover. That doesn't include the road improvements such as the Malkin Connector and improved traffic flow stemming from improved traffic metering out of downtown. The 3 minute figure has to be a worst case scenario. Don't be surprised if there is no lost commute time.

They themselves are saying it will add 3 minutes to the commute. Its not a worst case scenario. Judging by the city's past, its probably an overly optimistic estimate. The road "improvements" are completely underwhelming so far and the Malkin Connector is only a rumour at this stage. I'd say its more likely that in a few years the city's position will be "hey the viaducts are gone and people appear to be getting used to it, so why waste money on an "outdated" connector project".

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

They themselves are saying it will add 3 minutes to the commute. Its not a worst case scenario. Judging by the city's past, its probably an overly optimistic estimate. The road "improvements" are completely underwhelming so far and the Malkin Connector is only a rumour at this stage. I'd say its more likely that in a few years the city's position will be "hey the viaducts are gone and people appear to be getting used to it, so why waste money on an "outdated" connector project".

If you'd bothered to read anything posted here, you'd see the "pro viaducts" ex-city planner cited the following:

Adam said he obtained traffic projections from the city that show increased traffic at peak hours along the East Hastings corridor, Chinatown and Cambie Bridge. He said he viewed the same projections at open houses on the viaducts.

The projections, which he shared with the Courier, show the Main Street area at the east end of the viaducts jumping from 970 vehicles during the peak to 2,135. Increases are also anticipated to jump from 800 to 1,102 along East Hastings, 1,030 to 1,341 on East Cordova, 435 to 545 on East Pender and 2,000 to 2,192 over the Cambie Bridge.

“It’s going to have rush-hour conditions for six to eight hours a day,” Adam said. “So it’s not going to be this pleasant drive around False Creek. It’s going to be basically a freeway.”

He seems to think roughly 10% increases in traffic will lead to all day rush hour conditions, whatever that means.

[Pinion]

edit: nm I have to stop reading this thread. It drives me nuts. Tear them down already, rip off the band-aid.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

They themselves are saying it will add 3 minutes to the commute. Its not a worst case scenario. Judging by the city's past, its probably an overly optimistic estimate. The road "improvements" are completely underwhelming so far and the Malkin Connector is only a rumour at this stage. I'd say its more likely that in a few years the city's position will be "hey the viaducts are gone and people appear to be getting used to it, so why waste money on an "outdated" connector project".

Alright. How long do you think it will take to travel that 1 km along Pacific to Gore? 45 seconds to get across the old viaduct plus the eswtimated 3 minutes. That = 3 minutes 45 seconds. You would only have to average a bit over 15 km/h to match the 3 extra minutes estimate.

You don't think traffic can manage 15 km/h along Pacific?

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If you'd bothered to read anything posted here, you'd see the "pro viaducts" ex-city planner cited the following:



He seems to think roughly 10% increases in traffic will lead to all day rush hour conditions, whatever that means.

I think its quite simple what he means. Way more cars using the existing routes which lead to more congestion. He mentioned rush hour traffic would increase to 6 to 8 hours. Nowhere did he say it would be all day. But you would have klnown that if you bothered to read the article.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by logan5

Alright. How long do you think it will take to travel that 1 km along Pacific to Gore? 45 seconds to get across the old viaduct plus the eswtimated 3 minutes. That = 3 minutes 45 seconds. You would only have to average a bit over 15 km/h to match the 3 extra minutes estimate.

You don't think traffic can manage 15 km/h along Pacific?

You have to factor in the new traffic lights that will know be part of that route compared to the zero that exist now. That can alter travelling times dramatically. How much? No idea

Also important to note, the 3 minute figure is from the viaducts as they exist today. If you were to look at them before they, and roads leading to and from them were altered so that trips were already longer than they were previously, the disparity in time might be even longer. But again how much? Who knows since those figures don't exist. (at least that I'm aware of)

[BCPhil]

So can someone recap this whole pro/anti suburban debate for me in how it relates to being pro/anti viaduct. Because I'm lost.

Because, being for or against suburbs doesn't really address the issue the viaducts address: mobility.

I can see how people can be against suburbs because it seems land can be wasted and not used to full potential. It is a more efficient use of land to stack people on top of each other. Following that moral thread, isn't it more efficient to also stack mobility in layers? Then don't the viaducts subscribe to the efficient use of land? They separate different streams of traffic, resulting in calmer streets for pedestrians. Replacing them with the equivalent number of lanes on the ground seems wasteful.

Regardless of if we have suburbs or not, people are going to have to travel around the downtown core. There is only so much land to use for transport. And downtown has a larger grid than there are lanes leading in because of geographic interruptions. And as more people move to the region, more people will travel around downtown regardless of if they live in urban or suburban areas.

Over the last 100 years traffic has consistently gone up as the population grows. You can't really come to conclusions based on data from the last 5 years because that also coincides with the largest economic decline since around the time cars first came to prominence. It reminds me of people who deny global warming because it just snowed.

[trofirhen]

As It seems that Bacific Bvd is going to become a "super Road" with 4 lanes each way, what about taking part of that width and putting in an underpass? (A bit like the Hyde Park underpass).
The underpass I'm thinking of would start around Main Street, dip down, follow the Super Road and Pacific Blvd, and come up with an off-ramp going up Hornby to the CBD, and terminate- with a lighted intersection - at the Burrard Bridge, to continue West or South.
This would "thin out" the surface traffic, making manoeuvering time easier and faster, and enabling people going past South False Creek to do it quickly and easily.
The traffic going to destinations like Georgia St/Rogers Arena would have less competing surface traffic to deal with, and the intersections would be more fluid.
Probably not a practical idea, but I thought it worth a try, as this "Super Road" is going to be 4 lanes each way, I understand.