Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

That's what bothers me about Vision. So smug.

If it is not a conspiracy that they are not there, then it just means they are smug —. They brand this as the most important decision of a generation, and they let 2 of councilors not show up to vote?

In a day and age where voter apathy is at a high and politicians are out (even Gregor) pleading with the uninterested populace to vote in general elections, how can you then let 20% of councilors not show up to vote for the most important city making decision of a generation?

Are they smug? Arrogant? Out of touch? Or is it a "conspiracy" where they convinced their party members that might have blemished a vote with an official "abstention" to just not show up? Which is worse?

To me that reads as a council that voted 5 for, 4 against, and 2 others who voted "not yes". That's 5 in favor vs 6 who are not. I know that's not how politics works, but it doesn't instill me in confidence about the direction of a vote when you can't get more than half the councilors to show up and vote yes.

That's exactly how modern politics work. You either are with your party or you abstain. To vote with your conscience and against your party is not acceptable and is political suicide.

Career-wise, the only thing left for you to do is not to show up.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Built and maintained to today's seismic requirements? $$$$ better toll it.

All new major infrastructure projects should be tolled to pay back the capital costs.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Jebby

All new major infrastructure projects should be tolled to pay back the capital costs.

I agree, but the problem is with the culture and/or the ability of users to properly value their time. The PMB is a prime example... below revenue projections and the AFB and Patullo are jammed all day. Traffic will be mis-aligned until we see a complete refresh of current infrastructure.

The solution could be overall road pricing, with all revenue funneled into the next capital project, but any talk of that is hugely unpopular.

[Vin]

In the future, we will have really tall buildings, and the viaducts kept.....

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/11/vancouver-2040-reimagine-downtown-survey/

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

In the future, we will have really tall buildings, and the viaducts kept.....

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/11/vancouver-2040-reimagine-downtown-survey/

Go viaducts!! Still there!! (but hey, what buildings did I see? ... thought I saw the London Shard amidst a few others. I think the artist got a bit carried away.)

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Go viaducts!! Still there!! (but hey, what buildings did I see? ... thought I saw the London Shard amidst a few others. I think the artist got a bit carried away.)

That's from a futuristic TV show filmed in Vancouver. Beyond Human, now cancelled.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Go viaducts!! Still there!! (but hey, what buildings did I see? ... thought I saw the London Shard amidst a few others. I think the artist got a bit carried away.)

Yeah we all love fantasies.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That's from a futuristic TV show filmed in Vancouver. Beyond Human, now cancelled.

I know, I watched a few episodes during the first season and then gave up: wasn't compelling enough. Just couldn't resist posting the link to that picture since the city looks so good with the viaducts. I know you beg to differ.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Yeah we all love fantasies.




I know, I watched a few episodes during the first season and then gave up: wasn't compelling enough. Just couldn't resist posting the link to that picture since the city looks so good with the viaducts. I know you beg to differ.

You'll note that even 25 years later they still haven't been developed around... plus Andy Livingston park appears to be a homeless camp.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

That's exactly how modern politics work. You either are with your party or you abstain. To vote with your conscience and against your party is not acceptable and is political suicide.

Career-wise, the only thing left for you to do is not to show up.

What I meant was an abstained vote does not count as a negative. When you look at it, less than half of all council voted yes. And how many people voted directly for just those councilors in the first place. I know that it's still a direct yes vs no in politics, but that's not how much of the rest of the world works. So that is what worries me, is if they can't even get a small group of similar people to agree, how do they possibly represent the wishes of the populace at large?

Like if you were on a Jury, and couldn't decide if he was guilty or innocent, and everyone was voting guilty, your "abstention" doesn't make him guilty (it's not an 11-0 vote).

Having people not vote in your party is part of party politics. Which is why city politics used to avoid parties.

When you only have 11 voices governing a city of 600,000, you should have to hear everyone's opinion. 11 voices is pretty small, you should be able to reach consensus between them without resorting to strong arm tactics.

The North West Territory's population of 41,000 people have 19 people represent them in their legislative assembly (that is party free).

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

What I meant was an abstained vote does not count as a negative. When you look at it, less than half of all council voted yes. And how many people voted directly for just those councilors in the first place. I know that it's still a direct yes vs no in politics, but that's not how much of the rest of the world works.

Having people not vote in your party is part of party politics. Which is why city politics used to avoid parties.

Oh, I agree 100% with you. And I think it's a shame to be honest.

[Stingray2004]

To preface, 3 different types of polling methodologies are extant - CATI (very expensive but very accurate as the Nanos final poll results during recent fed election attest).

And then there is the much cheaper and inaccurate IVR and opt-in online panel, which is inherently biased toward the NDP here in BC as witnessed by the 2013 BC provincial election. Panel recruiting problems in that regard.

In any event, today Insights West (opt-in online panel) released a public opinion poll on the viaduct matter with very interesting results. (With opt-in online panel likely skewed toward the Geoff Meggs crowd). Dig deeper into the numbers though and the thing is on soft political ground - if not quick sand:

Future of Viaducts Splits Views in Metro Vancouver
November 5th, 2015

Seven-in-ten residents believe the decision only benefits developers and not the average resident.

Vancouver, BC – The recent decision by Vancouver City Council to remove the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts remains contentious for residents of Metro Vancouver, a new Insights West poll has found.

The online survey of a representative sample of Metro Vancouver residents shows that more than a third of residents (36%) support the decision to remove the viaducts, while two-in-five (40%) are opposed. Almost one-in-four (23%) are not sure.

Support for the removal of the viaducts is highest among men (40%) and residents aged 18-to-34 (39%). In the city of Vancouver, supporters of City Council’s decision outnumber opponents (45% to 36%). In the rest of Metro Vancouver, opposition is stronger (42% to 32%).

Across Metro Vancouver, 73% of residents are either “very familiar” or “moderately familiar” with discussions related to the future of the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts.

When asked about four proposed benefits that the removal of the viaducts may bring, a majority of Metro Vancouverites say that it will increase park space in downtown Vancouver (58%) and create opportunities for new housing (57%). However, only 48% feel that it saves money because no seismic upgrades will be needed, and just a third (32%) believe the removal will lead people to walk more and use their cars less.

When it comes to drawbacks, large majorities of Metro Vancouver residents think there is no guarantee that the housing associated with the removal of the viaducts will be affordable (85%) and say the decision only benefits developers, and not the average resident (71%). In addition, 70% think the removal will increase traffic in the area, and 58% expect it will make it more difficult for people to get to BC Place stadium.

“There is no consensus on the removal of the viaducts in Metro Vancouver,” says Mario Canseco, Vice President, Public Affairs, at Insights West. “It is important to note that even supporters of Vancouver City Council’s decision are looking at developers, and not citizens, as the clear beneficiaries of this course of action.”

Three-in-four Metro Vancouverites (75%) would like Vancouver City Council to consider the costs and benefits of other options, including rehabilitation and replacement, before removing the viaducts. In addition, two-thirds (68%) believe the cost of removing the viaducts—estimated at $200 million—would be better spent on other projects the city needs.

http://www.insightswest.com/news/future-of-viaducts-splits-views-in-metro-vancouver/

[WarrenC12]

But that's based on Metro Vancouver residents, not City of Vancouver. Here's the key:

In the city of Vancouver, supporters of City Council’s decision outnumber opponents (45% to 36%). In the rest of Metro Vancouver, opposition is stronger (42% to 32%).

So who's decision is this? City or Metro? Regardless, we elect these people to make decisions, then we get our say at election time. This isn't a post-election surprise (like HST), they've been telegraphing this move for years.

[Stingray2004]

City of Vancouver Residents - "ONLY":

1. Support or Oppose Vancouver City Council’s Decision to Remove the Viaducts?

Strongly Support: 16%
Somewhat Support: 29%
Somewhat Oppose: 20%
Strongly Oppose: 16%
Not Sure: 19%

2. Increased Traffic in the Area:

Agree: 68%
Disagree: 21%
Not Sure: 11%

3. Makes it More Difficult for People to Get to BC Place Stadium:

Agree: 55%
Disagree: 28%
Not Sure: 18%

4. Only Benefits Developers and Not the Average Resident:

Agree: 66%
Disagree: 23%
Not Sure: 12%

5. No Guarantee that Housing Associated with Removal of Viaducts will be Affordable:

Agree: 84%
Disagree: 8%
Not Sure: 7%

6. Vancouver City Council Should Consider the Costs and Benefits of Other Options, Including Rehabilitation and Replacement, Before Removing the Viaducts:

Agree: 76%
Disagree: 20%
Not Sure: 5%

7. The Cost of Removing the Viaducts is Estimated at $200 Million—This Money Would Be Better Spent on Other Projects the City Needs:

Agree: 65%
Disagree: 24%
Not Sure: 11%

Again, digging deeper into the numbers, this matter is even political road kill in the CoV.

BTW, BC MoTI minister Todd Stone was on Global BC Newshour tonight stating that the final decision is up to Translink, in any event, as the viaducts are either part of the MRN or MTR and, as regional transportation infrastructure, Translink will have the final say.

Good luck with that as it just ain't gonna happen. Translink has always previously refused similar requests all over Metro Vancouver. And I have been posting about same here for years... apparently to the sound of crickets.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

BTW, BC MoTI minister Todd Stone was on Global BC Newshour tonight stating that the final decision is up to Translink, in any event, as the viaducts are either part of the MRN or MTR and, as regional transportation infrastructure, Translink will have the final say.

Todd Stone needs to concern himself with getting re-elected before the final plan even comes out.

Who at Translink makes the decision? And what makes you think the COV engineers haven't already discussed their "super-road" plans with the powers that be at Translink and been given the conditional thumbs up? The COV is much more Translink-friendly than virtually any other municipality in the region.

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You'll note that even 25 years later they still haven't been developed around... plus Andy Livingston park appears to be a homeless camp.

And there is camping under the Skytrain viaduct, too.

Oct.25 '15, my pic

[the_prof]

Here is Translink's Board of Directors:

http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/Governance-and-Board/Board-of-Directors/Board-Members.aspx

among many people I don't know, I see:
"Jim Chu is a vice-president of special projects and partnerships with the Aquilini Investment Group"

Gregor Robertson is also listed there - somehow can't believe he never brought up the issue.

[Stingray2004]

Simply amazed that folk here still don't understand the major implications of Translink's MRN and MTR designations. The viaducts are now "regional" roads... people.

And "regional" concerns are now paramount. Completely over-rides the CoV.. So what happens when a municipal request for removal of either Translink designation occurs?

Translink prepares a "technical report" that looks at impacts and effects upon adjacent routes and municipalities, which requires consultation with local and regional stakeholders. Translink requires analysis on a number of criteria relating to "network operational implications".

And who are some of the major regional stakeholders ALWAYS involved? The BC Trucking Association. Remember when the Georgia viaduct was closed for filming? Commercial traffic/rigs heading down West Georgia St. were diverted and required a partial street shutdown, with police presence, for that to take effect.

And folk here think that the BCTA will approve a steep embankment down the escarpment? Good grief. BCTA will def be opposed to same.

And who else? The BC MoTI, which owns the Stanley Park Causeway/Lions Gate Bridge at the other end of the viaducts... as well as Hwy 1 at the other extreme end. The viaducts are part of that regional connectivity. BC MoTI minister has already signaled its opposition.

End result? Case closed (as in previous numerous similar instances). Move along folks. Nothin' gonna happen here.

[cornholio]

With the amount of misinformation and lies from city officials combined with the level of apathy regarding municipal governments its pleasant to see polls clearing showing the public is against this. A bit of information to counter the lies and these polls would provide a good rock solid mandate for the province to do its job.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

And there is camping under the Skytrain viaduct, too.

Oct.25 '15, my pic

They'll get a nicer place to camp if the viaducts come down.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

So what happens when a municipal request for removal of either Translink designation occurs?

And again, they are not eliminating the transportation link, they are replacing the viaducts with a different road. The replacement would still be part of the designated networks. Is it really so hard to believe that some sort of agreement might be reached to accomplish this? If a road is part of the MRN then does it mean we can never replace it with something else? If that's really the case, then why are we talking about replacing the Patullo bridge and Massey tunnel?