Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[officedweller]

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?

Because the more desirable areas of downtown are getting built out - so development of these less desirable areas will proceed - and when they do get built out
- then it'll be too late for the demolition proponents, because it will become obvious that the barriers are, in fact, not barriers (the same way the Granville viaducts/loops are being built around by Vancouver House.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

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.

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.

Ya hit the nail on the head. The eastern ends of the viaducts have never had proper connectivity.

Add in the Malkin Connector to Clark Dr. and a considerable chunk of E-W traffic on E. 1st Ave. heading to Hwy 1, will undoubtedly divert from Terminal Ave. over to the Viaduct/Malkin combo. I have absolutely no doubt about that. Wouldn't be surprised to see viaduct traffic volumes double as a matter of fact.

As an aside, here's a great article from the Van City Buzz from about 10 days ago. Worth the read. It's entitled: "Opinion: Vancouver viaducts demolition to be the worst transportation policy in city's history".

Also includes an "opinion poll" albeit not scientific. Still with interesting results on this question nevertheless... "Should the viaducts be demolished":

No: 69.25% (5,181 votes)
Yes: 23.08% (1,720 votes)
Undecided: 7.4% (552 votes)

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/10/vancouver-viaducts-demolition-worst-transportation-policy/

[Sprawl]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Actually, a lot has been done already.
Not to mention the viaducts would also perfectly funnel emergency traffic from downtown to the new mega hospital proposed.

How exactly is a long, elevated route with a single entry and exit point perfect for emergency vehicles? A traffic jam or collapse would leave patients and personnel helplessly stranded. Which is why ambulances currently avoid using them.

The Flats Hospital project is actually a strong reason to progress replacement.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Sprawl

How exactly is a long, elevated route with a single entry and exit point perfect for emergency vehicles? A traffic jam or collapse would leave patients and personnel helplessly stranded. Which is why ambulances currently avoid using them.

The Flats Hospital project is actually a strong reason to progress replacement.

Really? Have you ever seen the Georgia viaduct backed up due to a severe traffic jam? I've never seen the Georgia viaduct experiencing a traffic jam, ever! There are many other alternative routes even if Georgia viaduct collapses, but that is only because the city refuses to make it earthquake proof, but then again, what are the chances that an earthquake strikes? A few minutes lost by not using the Georgia viaduct can mean life or death for the patient.

On the other hand, Dunsmuir viaduct does back up from time to time, but like I said before, it doesn't matter because ambulances will not use it to speed towards the new hospital: wrong direction!

The flats hospital is one of the many reasons why we should be keeping the viaducts .

[logan5]

Emergency responders currently avoid using the viaducts because they can get stranded when traffic gets backed up on the one-way travel lanes of the viaducts.

http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/viaducts-study-cost-traffic-safety.aspx

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/viaducts-study-cost-traffic-safety.aspx

Yup, that's only because St Paul's is currently located downtown. Using Dunsmuir risks being trapped in traffic. The new St Paul's is sited where the direction of the flow never gets backed up, and Georgia viaduct actually helps to get the ambulances to the flats efficiently.

Again the City will skew the facts to justify themselves.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Sprawl

How exactly is a long, elevated route with a single entry and exit point perfect for emergency vehicles? A traffic jam or collapse would leave patients and personnel helplessly stranded. Which is why ambulances currently avoid using them.

The Flats Hospital project is actually a strong reason to progress replacement.

They are more than wide enough to accommodate transit / emergency vehicle only lanes don't you think?

With such lanes on both decks I think the odds of both lanes being clogged by accidents is pretty slim.

And during such an occasion, well, then you can take a surface road.

Also only in Vancouver is a 1km long elevated road considered "long."

The nearest city big city to where I live in Japan (Takamatsu, 500 000 person metro) has a 12 km long elevated expressway along with many elevated heavy rail lines. Just for reference.

The city of Vancouver has done the classic intentional poor planning / utilization to justify their want to tear them down. This is a popular method used by politicians around the world. It is similar to a government cutting funding for transit, putting up by-laws that weaken its services, adding red tape, etc... and then using that to justify more cuts to transit.

[WarrenC12]

Why don't you guys call BC Ambulance Service to get their take on it? You seem to refuse any facts presented.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Yup, that's only because St Paul's is currently located downtown. Using Dunsmuir risks being trapped in traffic. The new St Paul's is sited where the direction of the flow never gets backed up, and Georgia viaduct actually helps to get the ambulances to the flats efficiently.

Again the City will skew the facts to justify themselves.

First of all, any ambulance activity happening east of the viaducts will send them to VGH instead.

St. Paul's doesn't have a huge ER, contrary to what you might hear on the news constantly.

[twoNeurons]

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?

Who said anything about the next decade? I'm thinking longer-term. Either build around them now, or leave them for the next generation to do something more creative with when the land is even more valuable. One major reason Concord hasn't built anything there is because they've been promised more density (more money) if they wait. Why wouldn't they?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

First of all, any ambulance activity happening east of the viaducts will send them to VGH instead.

St. Paul's doesn't have a huge ER, contrary to what you might hear on the news constantly.

That would definitely change once the new St Paul's hospital is built on the flats right? Georgia viaduct would then work just fine and dandy to help transport patients to the new hospital, which is central to the idea of the discussion here.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Also includes an "opinion poll" albeit not scientific. Still with interesting results on this question nevertheless... "Should the viaducts be demolished":

No: 69.25% (5,181 votes)
Yes: 23.08% (1,720 votes)
Undecided: 7.4% (552 votes)

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/10/vancouver-viaducts-demolition-worst-transportation-policy/

If this City truly practices democracy, then policy or decision makers should at least look at the polls here.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Vin

If this City truly practices democracy, then policy or decision makers should at least look at the polls here.

Let's just say that Vision has Blind Vision when it comes to anything that does not align with their core social engineering principles.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

That would definitely change once the new St Paul's hospital is built on the flats right? Georgia viaduct would then work just fine and dandy to help transport patients to the new hospital, which is central to the idea of the discussion here.

Nope they'll probably take whatever is easiest, could be any route really. The newly proposed Georgia would be just the same amount of time.

Downtown/West End emergencies will probably go to VGH.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

If this City truly practices democracy, then policy or decision makers should at least look at the polls here.

Yes, by all means let's govern based on Vancitybuzz polls and internet comments.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Vin

If this City truly practices democracy, then policy or decision makers should at least look at the polls here.

I truly cannot see elected officials of any point on the political spectrum being swayed by an unscientific poll on VanCityBuzz. Really?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I truly cannot see elected officials of any point on the political spectrum being swayed by an unscientific poll on VanCityBuzz. Really?

Agreed, but is it perhaps an idea to conduct a FORMAL poll, to see where CoV residents are at with all this?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Agreed, but is it perhaps an idea to conduct a FORMAL poll, to see where CoV residents are at with all this?

What an excellent idea. We should do it on a regular basis, and establish some sort of registry to ensure that people aren't polled twice. We can call it an "election"...

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

What an excellent idea. We should do it on a regular basis, and establish some sort of registry to ensure that people aren't polled twice. We can call it an "election"...

In this case, it won't work, not in Vancouver. We just had an election.
A plebiscite might suffice instead.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

In this case, it won't work, not in Vancouver. We just had an election.

Yes, that was exactly my point - I guess you missed the sarcasm in my post. We've already had the "poll" you're suggesting, and the electorate has spoken.