Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts? - Page 220

Stingray2004 · #**4381** Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 1:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I think the city is trying to make the viaducts a foregone conclusion so the public will put pressure on Translink to remove the viaducts.

It may be in MRN, but it can be removed from the MRN as well. It just takes political will and public backing.

But that's not how Translink works. It's a "regional" body looking after regional interests. "Political" pressure from other municipalities, including Surrey for example, never previously worked.

Again, Translink looks to "stakeholders" such as MoTI, BC Trucking Association, Port Vancouver, etc. on such issues. And any removal requires a "superior" replacement. Fails to meet all these tests.

As I said years ago, Van City is just beating their head against a brick wall. Seriously. Just surprised that no one here sees that.

WarrenC12 · #**4382** Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 2:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

As I said years ago, Van City is just beating their head against a brick wall. Seriously. Just surprised that no one here sees that.

I'm sure the city transportation engineers are very aware of this, and have either spoken to Translink or already have an indication it will be approved based on the new super road. Why don't you go to the public forum at city hall on this topic? Or contact somebody in the media to dig this story up?

aberdeen5698 · #**4383** Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 4:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Over the past few years, I have repeatedly stated:

1. The Georgia viaduct is part of Translink's MRN;
2. Both the Georgia viaduct as well as the Dunsmuir viaduct are part of Translink's major truck routes;

I think you're taking a rather narrow view of this process. If what you say were that important then we could never replace the Patullo bridge because (I assume) it's part of the MRN. Vancouver will replace the viaducts with an alternate route. As long as traffic can continue to move, Translink should be happy.

Vin · #**4384** Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 7:50 PM**

I hope Translink fights hard to keep the viaducts.

The alternate to their removal is really inferior, and very obscure at this point.

Vin · #**4385** Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 7:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm sure the city transportation engineers are very aware of this, and have either spoken to Translink or already have an indication it will be approved based on the new super road. Why don't you go to the public forum at city hall on this topic? Or contact somebody in the media to dig this story up?

Super road haha funny. I want to see it on plan, showing clearly the alignment, number of lanes, and where the road will occupy, and how it will be connected to Prior street. The City can't even show the alternative to the public for fear of reprisals. All they dare show are obscure sketches with the skytrain guideway etched out, and lots of trees and buildings to hide the new "super road". I hope Translink gets the alternative route and reveals it to us, so that all of us can have a better and more informed knowledge of why we must spend 200mil of good public money on this.

CanSpice · #**4386** Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Super road haha funny. I want to see it on plan, showing clearly the alignment, number of lanes, and where the road will occupy, and how it will be connected to Prior street. The City can't even show the alternative to the public for fear of reprisals. All they dare show are obscure sketches with the skytrain guideway etched out, and lots of trees and buildings to hide the new "super road". I hope Translink gets the alternative route and reveals it to us, so that all of us can have a better and more informed knowledge of why we must spend 200mil of good public money on this.

It's like you didn't even try.

Please, stop with the "the city can't show the alternative" and nonsense about "obscure sketches". You're just making stuff up, and it's demonstrably false.

officedweller · #**4387** Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 11:40 PM**

Ha!
I was going to post the same map.

It is interesting, though, that the City hasn't fleshed out the Concord neighbourhood streets on that map.
I think it looks more palatable without showing the road network south of Pacific Blvd.

BTW - the studies contemplate cyclists getting from Carrall up to Dunsmuir (projected use = 800)
- so I'm thinking that the elevated structure touches down at Carrall (with switchbacks if height clearance
is similar to the current BC Place pedestrian overpasses?).

And check out the squiggly purple line from Union St.

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/REPORT-PAR...MEMO-PHASE-2-FINAL-SEPTEMBER-25-2015.pdf

jlousa · #**4388** Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 3:03 AM**

So taking my previous thoughts about going with the linear park idea... turns out it did already get approved.
Unsure why the city is showing us renders with creekside park as a block when a Vision council already approved at Concords request to switch to a linear park. I think the linear park is actually a better proposal, so curious why they would revert back to the old plan for the renders.
Here is the linear proposal which was approved back in 2011.

Plan Presentation
http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk//20111006/documents/penv1_staff_presentation.pdf
Agenda at council
http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk//20111006/documents/penv1.pdf
Minutes approving linear park
http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk//20111006/documents/penv20111006min.pdf

trofirhen · #**4389** Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 3:25 AM**

I'd like to see a diagram close-up of the future Georgia St - Pacific Bvd Intersection. Looks a bit confusing and vaguely drawn from here.

officedweller · #**4390** Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 3:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

So taking my previous thoughts about going with the linear park idea... turns out it did already get approved.
Unsure why the city is showing us renders with creekside park as a block when a Vision council already approved at Concords request to switch to a linear park. I think the linear park is actually a better proposal, so curious why they would revert back to the old plan for the renders.
Here is the linear proposal which was approved back in 2011.

Plan Presentation
http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk//20111006/documents/penv1_staff_presentation.pdf
Agenda at council
http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk//20111006/documents/penv1.pdf
Minutes approving linear park
http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk//20111006/documents/penv20111006min.pdf

I think this is a "no go" because of the location and types of contamination on the site. From what I understand, if you put an underground parking garage on the park site, you'd have problems with hydrocarbons (tar) oozing through the concrete.

******

Scroll up a few pages for the intersection.

jlousa · #**4391** Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 4:02 AM**

Lots to like if you're Concord.
Back in 1990 6C called 475K sqft of commercial space...
In 2009 it was changed to allowed 1.36M sqft of density and only 220K sqft of commercial space.
Now we are looking at 2.5M sqft of density and still only 220K sqft of commercial density with that commercial obligation now spread between Concord and the COV.

OD the Province is still on the hook for remediation of the Concord owned lands and would have to deal with the soil, Concord would've been well aware of the soil conditions before proposing the realignament in late 2011 and it doesn't appear to have scared them off then.

officedweller · #**4392** Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 5:44 AM**

I spoke to an MoE staffer at a Contaminated Sites conference last year and apparently the Ministry was apoplectic over the prospect of having to remediate that section to allow residential - essentially it can't be done.

BCPhil · #**4393** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 4:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sprawl

For someone so dismissive of those two data points, you're making a whole lot of assertions supported by no points at all.

Sorry if I was operating on the assumption that knowledge of the BC recessions was common. If you lived here at the time, you would know what I'm talking about. Unemployment hit 14.7% in 1984, and goods manufacturing fell 13% in 1982. GPD shrank by 6% in 1982. I was pretty young at the time in the 80's, but I sure do remember the 90's. All you have to do is look at photographs to see the difference in downtown between the 70's, the 80's and today to see the change in the job culture of the city.

But if there is something you have a specific problem with, let me know. If you have proof that our economy never shrank between 1965 and today, I'm curious to hear it.

Stingray2004 · #**4394** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 4:46 AM**

Just a few more tidbits. May, 1981 saw the peak of the BC economy. By October, 1981, the BC economy fell off a cliff. With 20%+ interest rates.

Mines closed. Forestry operations closed. Manufacturing industries closed. Gov't revenue dropped off a cliff. Huge spike in unemployment. People losing their homes en masse. Housing prices cut in half - for anyone even able to buy. Misery everywhere. Period. Worst economic conditions since early 1930's Great Depression.

aberdeen5698 · #**4395** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 5:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Just a few more tidbits. May, 1981 saw the peak of the BC economy. By October, 1981, the BC economy fell off a cliff. With 20%+ interest rates.

I still don't understand why people are talking about the 1960s and the 1980s. The 20% decline in traffic quoted by the City occurred during the last 15 years, which has nothing to do with those earlier economic conditions.

WBC · #**4396** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 8:41 PM**

Screenline reports but only for 2008 and 2011 (however if you read in detail you can find comparisons to 1992 and 1996):

http://www.translink.ca/en/site-info/document-library-result.aspx?id={43156C6D-1D13-4CD4-9E9C-36278D9F6AD9}&ref={071A449A-2E44-4380-988F-CF2F18EBFBB8}

So the traffic into CBD is decreasing... However, given that my patience is exponentially decreasing with age, the traffic is not decreasing fast enough

Vin · #**4397** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 9:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WBC

Screenline reports but only for 2008 and 2011 (however if you read in detail you can find comparisons to 1992 and 1996):

http://www.translink.ca/en/site-info/document-library-result.aspx?id={43156C6D-1D13-4CD4-9E9C-36278D9F6AD9}&ref={071A449A-2E44-4380-988F-CF2F18EBFBB8}

So the traffic into CBD is decreasing... However, given that my patience is exponentially decreasing with age, the traffic is not decreasing fast enough

From the screenline table, I calculated that based on 2011 figures, the combined volumes of Dunsmiur and Georgia viaducts carry about 9% of overall downtown traffic and 33% of eastern traffic. Still very significant.

twoNeurons · #**4398** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 9:41 PM**

FWIW, I totally think the viaducts should STAY. The main reason being is that it would force creative use of the area around them. The area should decided by city planners when the structure are EOL 30–40 years out.

This whole process is selfish and clearly "legacy building" Gregor and gang want a permanent reminder of their time in office. Do we really want or need more condos in that area?

CanSpice · #**4399** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 11:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

FWIW, I totally think the viaducts should STAY. The main reason being is that it would force creative use of the area around them.

When? They've been up for decades and they've hardly forced creative use of the area around them yet. Why would this suddenly happen in the next decade?

Metro-One · #**4400** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 12:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanSpice

When? They've been up for decades and they've hardly forced creative use of the area around them yet. Why would this suddenly happen in the next decade?

Actually, a lot has been done already.

Seriously, check out photos from 20 years ago and see how different the western end ofthe viaducts are. The thing is they have been built around so well there that you barely notice them as an "obstacle" anymore.

Also with so much land to develop around east False Creek over the last 20 years of course all the low hanging fruit land was going to be developed first.

As for the traffic argument, I agree it is not a good argument, and it has never been the basis for my reasoning of keeping the viaducts.

My basis is this: If traffic into downtown is decreasing, then reduce the traffic lanes on the surface streets! Take car space away from Water Street, Hastings, and Pacific and and encourage any displaced traffic to take the viaducts.

Seriously, this is the most annoying part of this entire plan here is the lost opportunity to really make those surface streets far more pedestrian friendly.

Not to mention the viaducts would also perfectly funnel emergency traffic from downtown to the new mega hospital proposed.

And the Malkin connector would have helped connect them to the road network overal.