Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

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.

Totally agree. I avoid busy times when I drive around the city, and the average speed reported by my car for most of my trips is around 30km/h or less.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

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.

Google Maps says that with zero traffic the travel time is around 20 minutes, so 30 minutes in "heavy traffic" is not terrible. Also, the estimated time is essentially the same regardless of whether you take the viaducts or take Pacific.

[city-dweller]

I have no problem with making it less desirable to drive downtown. I wish the City would just go all in and say this removal decision is about quality of life and development. The pains they have gone through to accommodate any threat of hurting traffic flows by building a "Stroad" undermines the rationale for removing them. If you want to protect traffic flows, upgrade the viaducts. If you want to develop the land and provide more public amenities, tear them down.

Part of the tension about this decision is shift in transportation planning inside cities. Some people see this decision through the traditional assumption of business health/jobs and car access, i.e. job centres will shift if access becomes too tight. Vancouver's downtown is already considered from this perspective as threatened. (eg. TomTom survey). This is the un-achievable goal of solving congestion. And for the last century, we "paved over paradise" trying to achieve this goal.

Vancouver in the 90s flipped this approach. And over time, civic transportation planning has shifted towards what moves the most people while providing an assortment of choices, i.e de-prioritizing the car. The land use decisions mirror this trend where "location location location" has become "transit transit transit". Jobs are moving, some out to the suburbs, but the construction of new office towers points to Vancouver moving in the right direction. It is attracting talent and new business. And, yes issues of affordability plague the city for renters, small businesses, and home owners.

Un-affordability and congestion are problems, but they have also helped spur theses changes. Look at the uptick in car-share and cycling not just in Vancouver, but across the region. Without a user price on road use, congestion, i.e. time, is the only price (congestion is worse even with the bridge tolls). So, I see the plan to take out the viaducts as another disincentive to drive downtown. (as if parking prices weren't enough), reducing the amount of traffic moving through the City, and providing the City the opportunity to provide more amenities and better infrastructure for cycling and walking.

[jsbertram]

The viaducts are sure useful on days like today when Pacific Blvd is closed for a charity run.

I haven't heard from anyone how they'll be able close Pacific and/or Expo (and the Georgia ramp connection) for charity runs after the viaducts are gone.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Google Maps says that with zero traffic the travel time is around 20 minutes, so 30 minutes in "heavy traffic" is not terrible. Also, the estimated time is essentially the same regardless of whether you take the viaducts or take Pacific.

That's a 50% increase. Its like saying its not so bad working 12 hour days in stead of 8 hour days for the same pay. Every second adds up, every single one. We should be trying to make our city more efficient, second by second, bit by bit. Find what can be improved and improve it, even if only by a bit. But this, this is a joke and only takes us back. Makes our part of the world less livable. And a 50% increase in travel time to cover that stretch to tens of thousands of people daily for no benefit to anyone, that's ludicrous. Vancouver is living off of foreign money coming in through immigration. I dread the day that flow ever slows down because then these policies of not only under investing in infrastructure but down right removing it will come to haunt us.

[Sprawl]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

The viaducts are sure useful on days like today when Pacific Blvd is closed for a charity run.

I haven't heard from anyone how they'll be able close Pacific and/or Expo (and the Georgia ramp connection) for charity runs after the viaducts are gone.

Mmm, very strong argument. Now, just thinking aloud here, stay with me, maybe, just maybe, they could hold a charity run elsewhere?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Sprawl

Mmm, very strong argument. Now, just thinking aloud here, stay with me, maybe, just maybe, they could hold a charity run elsewhere?

So your rationale is to move an event somewhere else everytime there is congestion due to the viaducts taken down? So I guess after the BC Lions or Canucks game, should there be congestion, then move the stadiums out of Vancouver. Move the Casino entertainment district somewhere else too because Pacific Blvd. would fare worse without the viaducts. Stop all new condo construction because too many people are commuting to and from downtown. Heck remove Lions Gate Bridge so that West Georgia will never be congested again. Might as well move the financial district to Metrotown since downtown roads can all be opened to pedestrian and bike traffic only.

In the end, turn the entire downtown peninsula into one giant Stanley Park by slowly moving everything manmade out. That should be very 'green'.

Apologize for the rant but irrationality by CoV knows no bounds....

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Totally agree. I avoid busy times when I drive around the city, and the average speed reported by my car for most of my trips is around 30km/h or less.

It's great you can avoid traffic and chose exactly when you drive. Other people are not so lucky, they have places they have to be at specific times. At often, those places they have to be at those place to contribute to the local economy.

And East 1st ave isn't the densest part of the city. Driving down that road reminds me of driving down 88 Ave in Surrey, mostly single family homes as far as the eye can see.

I don't see why those people should be made to suffer for some kind of ideal.

Originally Posted by city-dweller

I have no problem with making it less desirable to drive downtown. I wish the City would just go all in and say this removal decision is about quality of life and development. The pains they have gone through to accommodate any threat of hurting traffic flows by building a "Stroad" undermines the rationale for removing them. If you want to protect traffic flows, upgrade the viaducts. If you want to develop the land and provide more public amenities, tear them down.

Part of the tension about this decision is shift in transportation planning inside cities. Some people see this decision through the traditional assumption of business health/jobs and car access, i.e. job centres will shift if access becomes too tight. Vancouver's downtown is already considered from this perspective as threatened. (eg. TomTom survey). This is the un-achievable goal of solving congestion. And for the last century, we "paved over paradise" trying to achieve this goal.

Vancouver in the 90s flipped this approach. And over time, civic transportation planning has shifted towards what moves the most people while providing an assortment of choices, i.e de-prioritizing the car. The land use decisions mirror this trend where "location location location" has become "transit transit transit". Jobs are moving, some out to the suburbs, but the construction of new office towers points to Vancouver moving in the right direction. It is attracting talent and new business. And, yes issues of affordability plague the city for renters, small businesses, and home owners.

Un-affordability and congestion are problems, but they have also helped spur theses changes. Look at the uptick in car-share and cycling not just in Vancouver, but across the region. Without a user price on road use, congestion, i.e. time, is the only price (congestion is worse even with the bridge tolls). So, I see the plan to take out the viaducts as another disincentive to drive downtown. (as if parking prices weren't enough), reducing the amount of traffic moving through the City, and providing the City the opportunity to provide more amenities and better infrastructure for cycling and walking.

If un-affordability and congestion are problems, you have to solve them in similar ways. Un-affordability isn't solved by limiting supply.

If we treated housing like many are proposing we treat traffic, it would be a disaster. "Limit supply, people will adjust" is the theorem of traffic management. I can only imagine the uproar if that is how we handled housing supply and immigration.

In addition, poor transportation choice drives up housing costs. By making longer commutes even less attractive, you only make it more attractive to live closer to downtown, thus making it even more expensive than it is now.

People living far away get the shatf of longer commutes, and people living closer get their rents increased.

Originally Posted by cornholio

That's a 50% increase. Its like saying its not so bad working 12 hour days in stead of 8 hour days for the same pay. Every second adds up, every single one. We should be trying to make our city more efficient, second by second, bit by bit. Find what can be improved and improve it, even if only by a bit. But this, this is a joke and only takes us back. Makes our part of the world less livable. And a 50% increase in travel time to cover that stretch to tens of thousands of people daily for no benefit to anyone, that's ludicrous. Vancouver is living off of foreign money coming in through immigration. I dread the day that flow ever slows down because then these policies of not only under investing in infrastructure but down right removing it will come to haunt us.

Vancouver is living off foreign money. That is why they need to tear down the viaducts. They need more supply to sell to foreign investors who will never live here. The investors don't care how how bad getting around is here as long as the value of their properties increase above inflation.

And how do you achieve that increase? You make people want to live in Downtown by making it harder and harder to get there from outside. Without the viaducts, you get more supply of condos, and you get more motivated buyers/renters who are fed up by their longer commutes... thus driving up the value of those foreign investments, encouraging more investors to look at the city.

Now that is a bit of hyperbole, sure. But without a serious transportation plan to help people get around after the viaducts, I think it is more true than false.

What part of the viaducts plan compensates people commuting in from East Van and beyond? It is just a transfer of wealth that harms the working commuters of the city for the benefit of people playing the real estate game.

[Hourglass]

An average speed of 24 km/h to drive 12 km during non-rush hour is good??? And removing the viaducts to make journeys by car even longer is also good?

I'm sort of struggling with the logic. We're not talking Midtown Manhattan or London here.

I get the idea behind removing the viaducts. I'm dubious about the idea of an 8-lane super road to replace it. More to the point, what's the specific plan of how the resulting change in traffic flow will be managed (other than the assurance that my journey will 'only' be 3 minutes longer)?

Apart from the fact that it has forced people out of their cars into using transit (which also might be due to the fact that Skytrain is more extensive than 10 years ago), why are we celebrating gridlock? It's bad for the environment. It's bad for business. And it's a huge waste of people's time.

I would totally get behind the viaduct removal if there was a sound plan to handle the traffic. How about a connection from the super road (or whatever it is) to Highway No 1 across the rail yards and through the Grandview Cut to speed up commercial traffic? Or taking some of the downtown-bound traffic off surface roads via a tunnel into downtown? (interesting idea Trofirhen)

The downtown peninsula is still the commercial centre of Metro Vancouver. It has roughly 50% of the region's office space (more if you include the Broadway corridor). I think a bit more big picture thinking by the politicians at city hall is needed.

[Sprawl]

Originally Posted by Vin

So your rationale is to move an event somewhere else everytime there is congestion due to the viaducts taken down? So I guess after the BC Lions or Canucks game, should there be congestion, then move the stadiums out of Vancouver. Move the Casino entertainment district somewhere else too because Pacific Blvd. would fare worse without the viaducts. Stop all new condo construction because too many people are commuting to and from downtown. Heck remove Lions Gate Bridge so that West Georgia will never be congested again. Might as well move the financial district to Metrotown since downtown roads can all be opened to pedestrian and bike traffic only.

In the end, turn the entire downtown peninsula into one giant Stanley Park by slowly moving everything manmade out. That should be very 'green'.

Apologize for the rant but irrationality by CoV knows no bounds....

It should go without saying that those examples are completely different as they relate the the transience of the activity in question. Preserving expensive, redundant, detrimental infrastructure to avoid modifying the route of a charity run would indeed be boundlessly irrational.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Apologize for the rant but irrationality by CoV knows no bounds....

The whining about the viaducts knows no bounds. I'm sure we'll be in Mad Max land after they come down, just as you're predicting.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The whining about the viaducts knows no bounds. I'm sure we'll be in Mad Max land after they come down, just as you're predicting.

I think those war buggies had an average speed higher than 24 km/h though.

[city-dweller]

If un-affordability and congestion are problems, you have to solve them in similar ways. Un-affordability isn't solved by limiting supply.

No disagreement here

If we treated housing like many are proposing we treat traffic, it would be a disaster. "Limit supply, people will adjust" is the theorem of traffic management. I can only imagine the uproar if that is how we handled housing supply and immigration.

It is the other way around. The market is completely interfered with. There is an induced demand for people to commute downtown because there is no true user cost. It is a tragedy of the commons problem. The price of underused LAND from a scarce fixed supply in tandem with protectionist zoning is the squeeze on affordability. And then you add foreign speculation. It isn't foreign money that is the causing the west side to be low density.

In addition, poor transportation choice drives up housing costs. By making longer commutes even less attractive, you only make it more attractive to live closer to downtown, thus making it even more expensive than it is now.

I glad you concede that commuting by car is a choice. Reducing long commutes is a positive. The expensiveness of downtown is tied up in demand, but also miss-allocated demand whereby the market isn't producing the 2-3 bedroom units, i.e. people are bidding on units they don't want for a lack of choice. The City's policies have been slow to adjust.

People living far away get the shatf of longer commutes, and people living closer get their rents increased.

Keeping the viaducts won't change this. Knocking them down won't really change this. What about the increase in traffic on all the routes to the viaducts? I just don't know how to square this circle for you. This isn't an everybody wins outcome. However, without road pricing, the City in the long-term will benefit from a decrease in traffic running through it.

Originally Posted by Hourglass

...
I would totally get behind the viaduct removal if there was a sound plan to handle the traffic. ...

Completely disagree. If handling the traffic is the goal, keep them and upgrade them.

[officedweller]

Run routes change over time.

Once the south side of Pacific Blvd was fully developed, the Vancouver Sun Run switched to 6th Ave. on the south side of False Creek (since 1st Ave., Moberley, Charleson and Lamey Mill Rd provide a parallel alternative) - otherwise, using Pacific Blvd would have stranded all the residents on the Concord Lands south of Pacific Blvd.

Without the redundancy of the viaducts, and with the Plaza of Nations, the remaining Concord sites - and even One Pacific and the Casino in operation, there will likely be additional constraints on where the roads can be closed and where the run can be held.

They may do a partial closure, like some runs that use only half the Burrard Bridge.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by city-dweller

No disagreement here

It is the other way around. The market is completely interfered with. There is an induced demand for people to commute downtown because there is no true user cost. It is a tragedy of the commons problem. The price of underused LAND from a scarce fixed supply in tandem with protectionist zoning is the squeeze on affordability. And then you add foreign speculation. It isn't foreign money that is the causing the west side to be low density.

I would argue that of all places in the metro region, all travel downtown has a user cost. Not only is there a time cost in traffic, there is parking supply and price issues that make people place value on their travel decisions. I can't remember the last time I drove downtown and didn't spend money out of pocket.

And to a degree, it is money that is keeping the west side low density. People are spending ungodly sums of money on detached homes. Those people are spending that money to keep it like that. And the city makes money off the ludicrous values of the homes via property tax.

And it isn't just the west side that is to blame, the east side is pretty sprawlly too. If you want to build homes that makes taking transit a positive choice, why not focus energy around transit stations that are already built? What about putting density around Nanaimo, 29th, Renfrew and Rupert stations?

I just don't agree with the negative choice of making 2 things equal by making the better option worse. It should be the other way around. It is just a race to the bottom and doesn't force government to make anything better. If they can just make things worse, how do we ever get ahead?

Originally Posted by city-dweller

I glad you concede that commuting by car is a choice. Reducing long commutes is a positive. The expensiveness of downtown is tied up in demand, but also miss-allocated demand whereby the market isn't producing the 2-3 bedroom units, i.e. people are bidding on units they don't want for a lack of choice. The City's policies have been slow to adjust.

Everything is a choice. Living and working in Vancouver is a choice. And it is a choice that the government should be encouraging, not discouraging. And it is governments role to make our choices, thus our lives, better.

Of course the government needs to do a better job of zoning, but that can be done completely external to this viaducts argument. There is a lot of underused land and proposed developments elsewhere than can used to create more family homes close to the city, without impacting the lives of everyone else.

Originally Posted by city-dweller

Keeping the viaducts won't change this. Knocking them down won't really change this. What about the increase in traffic on all the routes to the viaducts? I just don't know how to square this circle for you. This isn't an everybody wins outcome. However, without road pricing, the City in the long-term will benefit from a decrease in traffic running through it.

There is a difference between the natural, unmolested downward progression of something, and the decision to actively get us there faster.

What you are saying is, in decades, traffic will be horrible, so why not just jump the shark sooner than later and realize that future today?

The city would benefit from less vehicle traffic, but no city would benefit from a decrease of total traffic. And this plan has no way of increasing capacity by alternative means. This affects those living in the east the most, and that is where transit is already at or near capacity (according to the cities own studies on the issue). And putting more traffic onto Hastings and Powell only makes the bus service even slower (decreasing total pphpd) and making taking transit an even worse choice.

And you are right, this proposal isn't an everyone wins proposal. It's a most people lose proposal. That's why I'm against it. It is intentionally making things worse for most people, for a little gain to a few.

There are other plans that could be done that have no negative impact on people's current lives, while still creating new housing and space for public amenities at less cost to the taxpayer.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

And you are right, this proposal isn't an everyone wins proposal. It's a most people lose proposal. That's why I'm against it. It is intentionally making things worse for most people, for a little gain to a few.

There are other plans that could be done that have no negative impact on people's current lives, while still creating new housing and space for public amenities at less cost to the taxpayer.

I'll need some statistics on how this makes things "worse for most people".

I think you should take a look at this BIV article:

https://www.biv.com/article/2015/10/should-viaduct-run-through-it/

As a taxpayer, this seems to be the most long term economical solution, while simultaneously removing the earthquake risk.

People in this forum, among other places, would be losing their mind if the viaducts took out Expo line during a disaster.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Sprawl

It should go without saying that those examples are completely different as they relate the the transience of the activity in question. Preserving expensive, redundant, detrimental infrastructure to avoid modifying the route of a charity run would indeed be boundlessly irrational.

1. Please enlighten everyone what makes you say that the viaducts are expensive, redundant and detrimental? If the City blows up the entire downtown today and not do anything to it after, then they don't have to spend another cent on it. That's very cheap.

2. Tearing the viaducts down and putting new ramps, re-doing Pacific Boulevard and installing new traffic signals to accommodate a new pattern of traffic flow are not expensive? (It would cost tax payers a few 100 million bucks).

3. The viaducts allow a city cultural/event to take place by helping to regulate traffic flow. How can you say they are redundant?

4. Should you move the charity run to be hosted somewhere else, then wouldn't you also be bringing a new set of traffic problems elsewhere? Downtown is the most logical point to hold such an event since public transportation routes converge here. More people will drive to events hosted outside downtown.


So now, let's rethink what is considered irrational.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'll need some statistics on how this makes things "worse for most people".

I think you should take a look at this BIV article:

https://www.biv.com/article/2015/10/should-viaduct-run-through-it/

As a taxpayer, this seems to be the most long term economical solution, while simultaneously removing the earthquake risk.

People in this forum, among other places, would be losing their mind if the viaducts took out Expo line during a disaster.

Then strengthen the columns holding up the viaducts: still way cheaper than demolishing them and putting new ramps and such.

Suddenly we are helpless to upgrade our infrastructure? Come on, that's a very poor argument.

Build towers along both sides of the viaducts and they will help the viaducts stay up even with a 7.5 R.S. earthquake: Condo parkades add more support to the column footings.

[trofirhen]

Here's another opinion, also from BIV.

https://www.biv.com/article/2015/8/retired-vancouver-director-transportation-question/

IMO, unless they design the new, wide Pacific Bvd with better interchanges than stop-go traffic lights, we're headed for gridlock.
But don't take my suggestion seriously, please. Just read the link. Please

[Sprawl]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Here's another opinion, also from BIV.

https://www.biv.com/article/2015/8/retired-vancouver-director-transportation-question/

IMO, unless they design the new, wide Pacific Bvd with better interchanges than stop-go traffic lights, we're headed for gridlock.
But don't take my suggestion seriously, please. Just read the link. Please

To suggest we are headed for gridlock is hyperbolic nonsense. At and above grade routes in NEFC cater for only ~15% of total vehicle flow into the city. The viaducts are a kilometre-long elevated expressway to nowhere; bridging over industrial land that no longer exists in order to connect a western freeway we didn't build with an eastern freeway we also didn't build. Replacing them with a merged route that testing demonstrates is capable of absorbing 100 per cent of current traffic volumes without even considering the mitigating effect of route and modal change will absolutely not cause gridlock.

As for Ian Adam's views on this issue, it's hard to see his 1960's way of thinking (that a few here seem to share) having any value in the context of today's approach to planning and transport governance wherein private vehicles are but one of many actors given equal weighting in decision-making. His inflating of current use by measuring the estimated number of people inside vehicles as opposed to the number of total vehicles, which is of course the metric of value when considering capacity and use, is plenty suggestive in itself.