Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The problem is that not all concerned get to vote on this issue.

This is a major road with regional implications.

Why do people living west of Main street, who have probably never used the viaducts, so don't see their value, have more say over the viaducts than the people who actually use them and benefit from their existence, but just happen to live outside the city bounds?

It's like if Burnaby decided the Trans Canada needed a traffic light at Gaglardi (just to keep the highway clear for Burnaby residents).

I live west of the viaducts and I don't even have a say in this, as according to WarrenC12.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

I live west of the viaducts and I don't even have a say in this, as according to WarrenC12.

You had your say during the last 2 municipal elections. Your guy didn't win, get over it.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

My question and concern is really rather simple.
It is evident that the viaducts are coming down sooner or later, more likely sooner than later.
OK. Given that fact, I want to know what the KEY intersections and access points (Georgia springs to mind) will have as intersections.
Will the intersections just be 4-way stoplights? Or is it possible to have some kind of "diamond" intersection" to help keep through-traffic (esp ambulances) flowing easily.

Also, given that this will be a "Super Road" with eight lanes, would it be possible to start at the eastern end
and build something anomalous to the Hyde Park Underpass in London for through-traffic wanting to go further West than downtown?

The developers/green space/bare concrete emptiness issues are another animal.

Heading East on Georgia,
cross Beatty (stoplights),
down the Georgia Ramp to
Pacific Blvd (stoplights),
left on Pacific Blvd
eastward to Abbott (stoplights),
east to Carrall (stoplights),
east to Quebec (stoplights),
east to Main St (stoplights),
east to Gore (stoplights),
and your now on Prior heading east.

or today:
Heading East on Georgia,
cross Beatty (stoplights),
east on the viaduct to Gore (stoplights),
and now your heading east on Prior.


All the extra intersection stops will let you admire the new Concord condos that the viaducts were sacrificed for.


Oh!
you also wanted to take traffic off Prior using the new Malkin connector?
Sorry, that's out of the scope of this project.
someone else is dealing with that.

what about the traffic access for the new St Pauls hospital?
someone else's project too.
it has nothing to do with the viaducts.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You had your say during the last 2 municipal elections. Your guy didn't win, get over it.

Shame that's what you think. We agree with some and disagree with some. Voting someone in doesn't mean the person has a free hand in everything. That is what democracy is about, and there should definitely be checks and balances from all stakeholders, including local residents.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

I simply can't take seriously any argument that the differences between the viaducts and a surface road are the difference between access and inaccessibility or the difference between successes and failure for downtown.

Could you make your point in a less silly way?

Same goes to you.

And that wasn't the point I was making in that post.

I was responding to how you giddily exclude people of other cities from having a say over the viaducts using the same kind of logic a child uses to keeps others from playing with his GI Joe.

Just because we don't currently at this moment live inside the city borders of Vancouver does not mean we have not contributed to the city and don't have a stake in the Viaducts.

And resorting to a neener-neener argument of it's mine not yours is childish at best.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Same goes to you.

And that wasn't the point I was making in that post.

I was responding to how you giddily exclude people of other cities from having a say over the viaducts using the same kind of logic a child uses to keeps others from playing with his GI Joe.

Just because we don't currently at this moment live inside the city borders of Vancouver does not mean we have not contributed to the city and don't have a stake in the Viaducts.

And resorting to a neener-neener argument of it's mine not yours is childish at best.

If the artery was being severed, rather than replaced the broader region might have grounds for extensive consultation, but in this case Vancouver is only altering the way by which road service is delivered. If they are so important in their current form to people from outside the city, then perhaps they should call their Mayors and City councilors, and ask them to offer to compensate Vancouver for their continued existence and for their renovation.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Heading East on Georgia,
cross Beatty (stoplights),
down the Georgia Ramp to
Pacific Blvd (stoplights),
left on Pacific Blvd
eastward to Abbott (stoplights),
east to Carrall (stoplights),
east to Quebec (stoplights),
east to Main St (stoplights),
east to Gore (stoplights),
and your now on Prior heading east.

or today:
Heading East on Georgia,
cross Beatty (stoplights),
east on the viaduct to Gore (stoplights),
and now your heading east on Prior.


All the extra intersection stops will let you admire the new Concord condos that the viaducts were sacrificed for.

HMM ... ALL stoplights, nothing further. What ... a ... drag.
No diamond interchange, no Hyde Park Underpass feature. They're gonna be sorrrry.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

If the artery was being severed, rather than replaced the broader region might have grounds for extensive consultation, but in this case Vancouver is only altering the way by which road service is delivered. If they are so important in their current form to people from outside the city, then perhaps they should call their Mayors and City councilors, and ask them to offer to compensate Vancouver for their continued existence and for their renovation.

While we're at it, we need to force the Stormont connector through New West and make Burnaby take some of the homeless population and fund public transit outside their borders.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

If the artery was being severed, rather than replaced the broader region might have grounds for extensive consultation, but in this case Vancouver is only altering the way by which road service is delivered. If they are so important in their current form to people from outside the city, then perhaps they should call their Mayors and City councilors, and ask them to offer to compensate Vancouver for their continued existence and for their renovation.

That's what I was getting at: We DO pay for it.

We don't directly give CoV engineering cash, but our patronage of downtown Vancouver injects money into the CoV economy, raises the value of the land, thus contributes to the CoV's property tax bottom line.

Can you not see that Vancouver (the city government) actually makes money off people from outside the city?

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

That's what I was getting at: We DO pay for it.

We don't directly give CoV engineering cash, but our patronage of downtown Vancouver injects money into the CoV economy, raises the value of the land, thus contributes to the CoV's property tax bottom line.

Can you not see that Vancouver (the city government) actually makes money off people from outside the city?

So? What you deigned to purchase things here so we should supplicate you with elevated expressways?

Again, no route into town is being cut, merely re-arranged, but the whole gravity of the points you make are as though people are being cut off or blocked from entering town. This is not the case.

And despite all your assumptions that we owe you for coming to visit, there's a whole pile of evidence that speeding car access into central urban areas has done far more to damage their tax bases and hollow out their populations than it has done to favor them. The viaducts are short so their impact is minor, but thankfully the city dodged the bullet of building more such things so that we could have more legions of suburbanites who think that living in the suburbs and working or shopping downtown is doing the central city a favor. Go 'patronize' Surrey if you want somewhere to drive

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

So? What you deigned to purchase things here so we should supplicate you with elevated expressways?

Again, no route into town is being cut, merely re-arranged, but the whole gravity of the points you make are as though people are being cut off or blocked from entering town. This is not the case.

And despite all your assumptions that we owe you for coming to visit, there's a whole pile of evidence that speeding car access into central urban areas has done far more to damage their tax bases and hollow out their populations than it has done to favor them. The viaducts are short so their impact is minor, but thankfully the city dodged the bullet of building more such things so that we could have more legions of suburbanites who think that living in the suburbs and working or shopping downtown is doing the central city a favor. Go 'patronize' Surrey if you want somewhere to drive

What evidence for what speeding cars into what central urban areas has done what damage to what tax base and hollowed out what populations?

You accuse me of painting overly specific bleak pictures, but you do the opposite: use vague, broad brushstrokes to generalize your idea.

And patronage of Vancouver goes beyond just shopping. How many successful businesses depend on the availability and contribution of employees from outside the city?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

So? What you deigned to purchase things here so we should supplicate you with elevated expressways?

Again, no route into town is being cut, merely re-arranged, but the whole gravity of the points you make are as though people are being cut off or blocked from entering town. This is not the case.

And despite all your assumptions that we owe you for coming to visit, there's a whole pile of evidence that speeding car access into central urban areas has done far more to damage their tax bases and hollow out their populations than it has done to favor them. The viaducts are short so their impact is minor, but thankfully the city dodged the bullet of building more such things so that we could have more legions of suburbanites who think that living in the suburbs and working or shopping downtown is doing the central city a favor. Go 'patronize' Surrey if you want somewhere to drive

i like this new guy. the drama and condescending speech is entertaining.

its almost like he likes the idea of the city wasting 200 million dollars for no other reason but to allow developers to build more point-and-click towers. and it also seems like he likes the idea of having pedestrians having to cross 8 lanes of busy traffic instead of 3 lanes of little traffic. and its almost like he likes the idea of having more car/pedestrian/bike interactions to increase the chances of accidents. and its almost like he likes the idea of having more cars idle at more lights for no other reason other then to make the city more efficient and to add more pollutants into the air. come on Geoff Meggs, we know its you. the jig is up

[logan5]

Developing that land is a pretty big deal. It will completely change the complection of that area. Right now in the immediate area of the viaducts there are 3 lots that are completely empty, plus the unoccupied retail spaces. Once the viaducts are gone that will all change.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by logan5

Developing that land is a pretty big deal. It will completely change the complection of that area. Right now in the immediate area of the viaducts there are 3 lots that are completely empty, plus the unoccupied retail spaces. Once the viaducts are gone that will all change.

All of that can change with the Viaducts in place.

The only reason Concord doesn't build is because they are holding out for the viaducts to come down, so they can swap some land and allowances, and come out ahead at the expense of the public.

Why should an asset be taken out of the public domain that benefits society at large so that land can be transferred into the private realm for the enjoyment of a few?

Yes, there will be a few thousand new residents who benefit greatly, but how do the other 2 million people in the lower mainland benefit from this transfer of public assets to private wealth?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

..........
Yes, there will be a few thousand new residents who benefit greatly, but how do the other 2 million people in the lower mainland benefit from this transfer of public assets to private wealth?

.......
Why that's easy! They get the priviledge of driving on an eight-lane Super Road, replete with traffic lights galore.

[Sprawl]

Originally Posted by logan5

Developing that land is a pretty big deal. It will completely change the complection of that area. Right now in the immediate area of the viaducts there are 3 lots that are completely empty, plus the unoccupied retail spaces. Once the viaducts are gone that will all change.

Indeed. Replacing the viaducts will be of significant benefit to all stakeholders other than drivers, who will be slightly inconvenienced by a couple extra minutes of travel time. Perhaps the city could arrange for someone to play the world's tiniest violin alongside those invidious new stoplights?

Coupled with progress on development and a connector road within the Flats, this will have a transformative impact on the city's east.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by Sprawl

Indeed. Replacing the viaducts will be of significant benefit to all stakeholders other than drivers, who will be slightly inconvenienced by a couple extra minutes of travel time. Perhaps the city could arrange for someone to play the world's tiniest violin alongside those invidious new stoplights?

Coupled with progress on development and a connector road within the Flats, this will have a transformative impact on the city's east.

This reads like a press release by city hall. Just saying...

My issue is that the city seems to be treating the viaduct removal as a fait accompli. Could those funds be better allocated elsewhere?

Yes, getting re-elected comes with a mandate, but there should be some accountability when spending a chunk of (taxpayer) change to remove a chunk of infrastructure with 15-20 years' of use left and replace it with something that is less efficient (ie 'a couple of extra minutes of travel time.')

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

This reads like a press release by city hall. Just saying...

My issue is that the city seems to be treating the viaduct removal as a fait accompli. Could those funds be better allocated elsewhere?

Yes, getting re-elected comes with a mandate, but there should be some accountability when spending a chunk of (taxpayer) change to remove a chunk of infrastructure with 15-20 years' of use left and replace it with something that is less efficient (ie 'a couple of extra minutes of travel time.')

They probably could stand to wait. The 2009 study reckoned that they had another 9 years from 2015 before they needed heavy renovations, and until then, there are plenty of projects to spend money on.

With respect to efficiency the viaducts are only efficient if your measure of efficiency is car velocity. In many other ways they are inefficient, such as land value and usage of space What reordering the space would do however would be to provide far more 'patronage' in the form of residents who live work and shop in Vancouver much more frequently than those dwelling farther away, and make fewer demands for public infrastructure when they do so.

Kick it back a few years and this eight lane road idea (which, I might add I've never seen reference to outside this forum) might have more time to die too.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

They probably could stand to wait. The 2009 study reckoned that they had another 9 years from 2015 before they needed heavy renovations, and until then, there are plenty of projects to spend money on.

With respect to efficiency the viaducts are only efficient if your measure of efficiency is car velocity. In many other ways they are inefficient, such as land value and usage of space What reordering the space would do however would be to provide far more 'patronage' in the form of residents who live work and shop in Vancouver much more frequently than those dwelling farther away, and make fewer demands for public infrastructure when they do so.

Kick it back a few years and this eight lane road idea (which, I might add I've never seen reference to outside this forum) might have more time to die too.

Yes, 8 lanes at ground level? I really hope that isn't the plan...

Agree that vehicle velocity isn't the only (or best) measure of 'efficiency.' But I think most people would agree that vehicle movement around Vancouver isn't exactly smooth, and it's not possible or practicable to push everyone to use transit or their bikes. As an anecdotal example, the last few times I've driven from the West End to the East 1st on-ramp of the TCH -- a distance of around 12km -- has taken me about 30 minutes. That's an average speed of 24 km/h. No accidents, just heavy traffic and a bunch of traffic lights. In that context, removing the viaducts and making it more inefficient without putting in place a viable alternative just doesn't seem like a good idea.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

Yes, 8 lanes at ground level? I really hope that isn't the plan...

Agree that vehicle velocity isn't the only (or best) measure of 'efficiency.' But I think most people would agree that vehicle movement around Vancouver isn't exactly smooth, and it's not possible or practicable to push everyone to use transit or their bikes. As an anecdotal example, the last few times I've driven from the West End to the East 1st on-ramp of the TCH -- a distance of around 12km -- has taken me about 30 minutes. That's an average speed of 24 km/h. No accidents, just heavy traffic and a bunch of traffic lights. In that context, removing the viaducts and making it more inefficient without putting in place a viable alternative just doesn't seem like a good idea.

I'd call an average of 24 km/h through the densest part of the city a pretty good pace. I'm sure you went through a dozen or more intersections too.