HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5421  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2019, 1:56 AM
retro_orange retro_orange is offline
retro_orange
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture View Post
see, my biggest issue is this;
That rant is really the embodiment of the last paragraph of my last statement. There was a particular developer who decided to not develop those Expo lands and you know it. Also there will be a lot of social housing and rental in the new developments and the remaining market condos are now much harder to sell to speculators who leave them vacant. If he did develop everything in a timely manner I believe the DTES problems would have improved a lot more then it has and likely would have maintained the upward swing from the momentum of the huge redevelopment of the Expo lands. Your way of thinking has maintained the status quo which led us here in the first place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5422  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2019, 2:02 AM
VancouverOfTheFuture's Avatar
VancouverOfTheFuture VancouverOfTheFuture is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 3,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by retro_orange View Post
That rant is really the embodiment of the last paragraph of my last statement. There was a particular developer who decided to not develop those Expo lands and you know it. Also there will be a lot of social housing and rental in the new developments and the remaining market condos are much harder to sell to speculators who leave them vacant. If he did develop everything in a timely manner I believe the DTES problems would have improved a lot more then tit has and likely would have maintained the upward swing from the momentum of the huge redevelopment of the Expo lands. Your way of thinking has maintained the status quo which led us here in the first place.
i am a bit confused by this statement. my way of thinking was to develop the empty lands and not leave them empty for 30yrs, and then if it was warranted go from there.

i still don't get how the viaducts being there have hindered the building of on the empty 24 acres... you can build on empty land even if there is a road on land next to it...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5423  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2019, 2:04 AM
retro_orange retro_orange is offline
retro_orange
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture View Post
i am a bit confused by this statement. my way of thinking was to develop the empty lands and not leave them empty for 30yrs, and then if it was warranted go from there.

i still don't get how the viaducts being there have hindered the building of on the empty 24 acres... you can build on empty land even if there is a road on land next to it...

There was nothing stopping them from building around them in the 80's or 90's or any of the other lands for that matter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5424  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2019, 2:05 AM
VancouverOfTheFuture's Avatar
VancouverOfTheFuture VancouverOfTheFuture is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 3,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by retro_orange View Post
There was nothing stopping them from building around them in the 80's or 90's.
i know, and whats stopping them now from doing that? why are we jumping at the chance of using public money to help a developer?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5425  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2019, 2:13 AM
retro_orange retro_orange is offline
retro_orange
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture View Post
i know, and whats stopping them now from doing that?

It's a bad use of space if you only get one or two floors when you can get a dozen or more because of a shred of unfinished highway infrastructure. Playing with constructing around what are very dated pieces of urban planning is just a bad idea and not profitable for any developer to build around them because of the constraints they impose on any new structures.

So what if they are halfway through their life? They were an awful idea from the 60's, a time when urban planning was at it's worst. Also if they are halfway through their life any new building built around them at this point in time will last much longer than the viaducts themselves.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5426  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2019, 2:28 AM
MIPS's Avatar
MIPS MIPS is offline
SkyTrain Nut
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Kamloops
Posts: 2,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by retro_orange View Post
There was a particular developer who decided to not develop those Expo lands and you know it.
If you just say Concord Pacific, you could make it sound less like they're the boogyman who will go after us for mentioning their name in ill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by retro_orange View Post
There was nothing stopping them from building around them in the 80's or 90's or any of the other lands for that matter.
They were and still are, squatting on that land until they are satisfied with the best price per square foot. They want nothing permanent on that land because it's worth hundreds of millions in the current market. I seem to recall they also got the land for WAY less than it was worth post-Expo anyways, so they can make that end of False Creek as ugly as they want until the city sells out in concessions for them to develop. The viaducts are clearly on the table simply for that reason: demolish the viaducts for us and we'll gladly help repurpose the land into something more than a fenced off parking lot which we occasionally rent out for events.

Oh, but it's pure profit for us.

Quote:
It's a bad use of space if you only get one or two floors when you can get a dozen or more because of a shred of unfinished highway infrastructure.
Unfinished implies the road surface is not yet suitable for use. Not only has it been open for decades but has been proven to be the fastest unobstructed route into and out of the downtown core. This has been stated and demonstrated by many people in this thread repeatedly. Stating they don't want to build because of an elevated highway immediately in front of the first few floors is ridiculous and has not hampered development in many other cities.

Last edited by MIPS; Mar 18, 2019 at 2:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5427  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2019, 3:24 AM
VancouverOfTheFuture's Avatar
VancouverOfTheFuture VancouverOfTheFuture is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 3,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by retro_orange View Post
It's a bad use of space if you only get one or two floors when you can get a dozen or more because of a shred of unfinished highway infrastructure. Playing with constructing around what are very dated pieces of urban planning is just a bad idea and not profitable for any developer to build around them because of the constraints they impose on any new structures.
okay, but that still doesn't address my main point. there is ~ 24 acres of vacant land NOT IMPEDED BY THE VIADUCTS. why must the viaducts be gone for those lands to be developed? why cant we develop the empty land first, see how it goes, AND THEN talk about viaduct removal.

24 acres of land is NOT being blocked by the viaducts; more empty vs more taken by them ~15 acres. so why must they be gone to develop? why?

you still haven't addressed this point. no one has yet. everyone says the viaducts are in the way. but HOW? there is 24 acres of vacant land. more then the 15 used by the viaducts.if i want to build a lane-way house, how come that can be done when 60% of the property is covered by structure. where as for here, we cant build anything at all when 38% is covered by structure? it makes no sense and no one has explained this with any rational. i mean, sure, the viaducts gone would make it way easier to build those Yaletown towers and make it way more profitable for developers. but should we be making decisions with public money and public infrastructure to make things profitable for developers? seems like once again, tax payers being screwed.


if you put the facts together, it looks like it is developers selling out the citizens, politicians trying to make a legacy, politicians selling out the citizens, and developers trying to get free benefits and money for themselves from the backs of tax payers. really, this is a game, and the losers will be the tax payers. as almost always is.


but, i digress, i wont change your mind, you wont change mine. so this is all so pointless; fingers crossed my rumours are right and this is all moot. i am bowing out of this as it serves no purpose.

Last edited by VancouverOfTheFuture; Mar 18, 2019 at 3:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5428  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2019, 7:44 PM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Broadway-Cambie shows that timed lights don't matter if people ignore the lights and cross regardless. The 99 at rush hour spends 2-4 minutes just sitting at the intersection. Multiplied by seven intersections... yeah, I'm not looking forward to that bus ride.



Aesthetics - personally I think they look nice. Definitely better than the old concept.

I can guarantee that there aren't any barges or freighters in False Creek. Usually, the only boats turning around are small ones, and they don't need much space.
I actually like the park space on this one better. It feels more like a natural park space, not an engineered green space for sports.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture View Post
1 - Kingsway extending and pushing through to connect to Quebec; that was killed by previous council.
Source?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture View Post
i know, and whats stopping them now from doing that? why are we jumping at the chance of using public money to help a developer?
Concord won't develop the lands if they know they'll get more down the line. There's no rush, they have major projects in every other town centre of Vancouver right now, including in Downtown itself. Molson and the Westin Bayshore are prime lots which could be accelerated if COV is unable to commit to whatever they plan to do with the viaducts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MIPS View Post
If you just say Concord Pacific, you could make it sound less like they're the boogyman who will go after us for mentioning their name in ill.


They were and still are, squatting on that land until they are satisfied with the best price per square foot. They want nothing permanent on that land because it's worth hundreds of millions in the current market. I seem to recall they also got the land for WAY less than it was worth post-Expo anyways, so they can make that end of False Creek as ugly as they want until the city sells out in concessions for them to develop. The viaducts are clearly on the table simply for that reason: demolish the viaducts for us and we'll gladly help repurpose the land into something more than a fenced off parking lot which we occasionally rent out for events.

Oh, but it's pure profit for us.


Unfinished implies the road surface is not yet suitable for use. Not only has it been open for decades but has been proven to be the fastest unobstructed route into and out of the downtown core. This has been stated and demonstrated by many people in this thread repeatedly. Stating they don't want to build because of an elevated highway immediately in front of the first few floors is ridiculous and has not hampered development in many other cities.
Didn't you know? Concord Pacific is the Voldemort of developers!

TBF, the viaducts don't carry you very far out of the downtown core...

Also, note that Concord doesn't own most of the land that would be freed up, which is owned by the City of Vancouver. Of course, Concord would be the logical developer to sell it too, but that's no guarantee.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture View Post
okay, but that still doesn't address my main point. there is ~ 24 acres of vacant land NOT IMPEDED BY THE VIADUCTS. why must the viaducts be gone for those lands to be developed? why cant we develop the empty land first, see how it goes, AND THEN talk about viaduct removal.

24 acres of land is NOT being blocked by the viaducts; more empty vs more taken by them ~15 acres. so why must they be gone to develop? why?

you still haven't addressed this point. no one has yet. everyone says the viaducts are in the way. but HOW? there is 24 acres of vacant land. more then the 15 used by the viaducts.if i want to build a lane-way house, how come that can be done when 60% of the property is covered by structure. where as for here, we cant build anything at all when 38% is covered by structure? it makes no sense and no one has explained this with any rational. i mean, sure, the viaducts gone would make it way easier to build those Yaletown towers and make it way more profitable for developers. but should we be making decisions with public money and public infrastructure to make things profitable for developers? seems like once again, tax payers being screwed.


if you put the facts together, it looks like it is developers selling out the citizens, politicians trying to make a legacy, politicians selling out the citizens, and developers trying to get free benefits and money for themselves from the backs of tax payers. really, this is a game, and the losers will be the tax payers. as almost always is.


but, i digress, i wont change your mind, you wont change mine. so this is all so pointless; fingers crossed my rumours are right and this is all moot. i am bowing out of this as it serves no purpose.
You can, except if we decide to pull down the viaducts in the future, Concord will be left with a bunch of empty, infill lots that are less viable that have to be filled up. It's not worth it for them if they can get better. The only way Concord is going to build their lands is if Vancouver commits to one or the other past the point of no return.

Also, note that keeping the viaducts would split the new connector park proposed in the plan into 2. There's a dead space between Carral and Columbia that needs to be filled up.

Taxpayers weren't going to foot the bill as per the original plan. However, would Concord Pacific would be willing to pay the amount to remove the viaducts in the current real estate market?



I wonder if it's feasible to only remove the eastern half of the viaducts, which is where the majority of the freed up land is in.

The only loss would be the Main St- Prior St. interchange. The existing bike lane on the Main St. exit would be removed (though a new bike land connector would have to be added).

If Malkin St. is the primary option, the road change below would be needed.

If not, then Prior St. would be converted to 3-lanes westbound, 1 lane eastbound (for hospital access, mostly)

Union St would become an arterial for westbound traffic, with the road being converted into a westbound one-way road, and a new connector to Andenac St. would be built, to extend the arterial.

New viaducts would be built over the rail tracks. =

Last edited by deasine; Mar 20, 2019 at 6:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5429  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2019, 8:21 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
Hmm. I thought there was a clear understanding that if there is a major shift in demographics in a neighbourhood that a positive change takes place. There are so many examples, it's impossible argue against.Harlem and Brooklyn come to mind. Downtown Los Angeles, Washington DC, and you can even see it Chinatown here in Vancouver. Calling it unicorns and rainbows is putting your blinders on, all for the sake of 1 useless km of elevated freeway.
But those those places did not "improve" after viaducts were torn down. Demographics in Vancouver's DTES can still shift WITHOUT the viaducts being demolished.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5430  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2019, 8:31 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture View Post
i am a bit confused by this statement. my way of thinking was to develop the empty lands and not leave them empty for 30yrs, and then if it was warranted go from there.

i still don't get how the viaducts being there have hindered the building of on the empty 24 acres... you can build on empty land even if there is a road on land next to it...
If, as per retro-orange suggested, that everything were to be developed in a "timely manner", there is no way to raise enough funds for the viaduct removal and subsequent rehab work.

There is simply no way any traffic congestion problems post-viaduct-removal can be solved with condos to be built in phases. Everything has to be done in one phase, otherwise the entire neighbourhood would be in a complete mess.

Therefore I foresee taxpayers to be on the hook in the future, as opposed to what the Vision government may have claimed. They would say anything, including emergency vehicles getting stuck on the viaducts, to bulldoze through for the completion of their nonsensical agenda and pet projects.

People today treat old infrastructure as if they cost nothing to build. They were from hard-earned tax-money of the previous generation of Vancouver residents, and should be respected.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5431  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2019, 9:37 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 2,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
People today treat old infrastructure as if they cost nothing to build. They were from hard-earned tax-money of the previous generation of Vancouver residents, and should be respected.
Nothing can ever change because everything was built from the hard-earned tax money of the previous generation of Vancouver residents. St. Paul's Hospital should not move. BC Place should never have had a new roof. We should never repave roads because they were built from the hard-earned tax money of the previous generation of Vancouver residents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5432  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2019, 6:52 PM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
But those those places did not "improve" after viaducts were torn down. Demographics in Vancouver's DTES can still shift WITHOUT the viaducts being demolished.
But having a gentrified area nearby puts upwards pressure on nearby areas.

Also, the area would provide housing support for the New St. Paul's.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5433  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2019, 7:23 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSpice View Post
Nothing can ever change because everything was built from the hard-earned tax money of the previous generation of Vancouver residents. St. Paul's Hospital should not move. BC Place should never have had a new roof. We should never repave roads because they were built from the hard-earned tax money of the previous generation of Vancouver residents.
Especially when the previous generation fought so hard to allow the viaducts. They even offered up a neighbourhood just so that they'd get built. /s
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5434  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2019, 7:36 PM
Changing City's Avatar
Changing City Changing City is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 8,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Especially when the previous generation fought so hard to allow the viaducts. They even offered up a neighbourhood just so that they'd get built. /s
Here they all are, 'celebrating' the opening...



[Vancouver Sun]
__________________
Contemporary Vancouver development blog, https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/ Then and now Vancouver blog https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5435  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2019, 9:13 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSpice View Post
Nothing can ever change because everything was built from the hard-earned tax money of the previous generation of Vancouver residents. St. Paul's Hospital should not move. BC Place should never have had a new roof. We should never repave roads because they were built from the hard-earned tax money of the previous generation of Vancouver residents.
Yeah, like the viaducts were built in 1894 and getting too small for the daily usage? Or maybe the viaducts have a leaky or damaged roof just like BC Place Stadium?

Even if St Paul's were to move, the building is still a heritage structure and should be protected.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
But having a gentrified area nearby puts upwards pressure on nearby areas.

Also, the area would provide housing support for the New St. Paul's.
There is still lots of land around the area to provide housing support for the new St Paul's hospital without the viaducts torn down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5436  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2019, 9:18 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City View Post
Here they all are, 'celebrating' the opening...



[Vancouver Sun]
Exactly, just like what was happening at West Van recently regarding the B-Line bus..... It's a good thing that the majority won back then to have the viaducts built.

https://www.nsnews.com/news/b-line-debate-heats-up-at-west-van-council-1.23646649
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5437  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2019, 9:26 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Especially when the previous generation fought so hard to allow the viaducts. They even offered up a neighbourhood just so that they'd get built. /s
Yeah, if you consider a slum and a segregated black ghetto a neighbourhood. Hogan's Alley was created due to racial discrimination and already rundown way before the viaducts were built.

Funny how many people buy into Vision's rhetoric that a "cultural relic" was lost due to the viaducts construction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5438  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2019, 9:39 PM
retro_orange retro_orange is offline
retro_orange
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City View Post
Here they all are, 'celebrating' the opening...



[Vancouver Sun]

That 1968 Cadillac Deville is the epitome of the mindset at the time the viaducts were built, 8.86 MPG = 3.76 KPL. Abysmal.

I'm sure all the people who were evicted from their neighborhood and had to move felt grateful they didn't have to apply their brakes for a few blocks through their old cultural stomping ground. /s

Quote:
1968 Cadillac DeVille MPG
Based on data from 3 vehicles, 109 fuel-ups and 17,419 miles of driving, the 1968 Cadillac DeVille gets a combined Avg MPG of 8.86 with a 0.36 MPG margin of error.
http://www.fuelly.com/car/cadillac/deville/1968
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5439  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2019, 9:45 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,736
If the viaducts were to come down, we are definitely screwed. There still isn't a clear plan of how they are going to deal with traffic dispersal east of Main Street. And all the pro-viaduct removal folks are already singing praises for this potentially costly and disastrous Mickey Mouse endeavour.




City Offloads Viaduct Traffic Dilemma to Vancouverites
Experts, not community panel, should decide best new route to downtown.
By Maria Stanborough 2 May 2018 | TheTyee.ca

Maria Stanborough has been working as an urban planner throughout B.C. for more than 10 years. She is an admitted data geek and is a fan of transparency in community planning. She currently works at C+S Planning Group.


The Vancouver planning department has chosen to distance the new road network from the viaducts it is replacing by calling it the ‘False Creek Flats Arterial.’

Vancouver may soon be saying goodbye to its viaducts, but what will take their place as the new gateway to the downtown?

It’s a decision that requires robust cost-benefit analysis. But rather than rely on paid experts, Vancouver’s planning department wants a community panel to choose one of three potential routes — each with at least one negative impact for the community.

In 2015, a staff report addressed the question of where the viaduct traffic would go by recommending to city council that “an at-grade road network would be able to accommodate 100 per cent of today’s traffic volume, and can be designed to handle future traffic volumes more efficiently.” The then-directors of planning and engineering signed the report, long before any network had been determined.

Fast forward to 2018. Vancouver’s transportation department is co-ordinating a community panel to choose one of three options for the promised new road network. This new network will have to be able to accommodate 100 per cent of today’s traffic volume, as per the 2015 report.

The city used a similar approach in 2014 when it reached a stalemate with residents about the contentious Grandview-Woodland Community Plan, which included proposed rezoning changes. In response, it created a 48-person citizens’ assembly to offer advice.

The assembly was designed only for those residents most committed to the process and with the most flexibility in their schedules. Participants weren’t paid and had to devote a lot of weekends to the process. After two years of the citizens’ assembly, the area plan was passed in July 2016 following a heated council debate.

Now, the city is looking to create a community panel to address one of its most challenging transportation decisions as the viaducts come down.

The at-grade road network west from Main Street to the downtown core seems to have been decided, but the continuation of the road from Main Street to the east is unclear. Each of the three proposed routes — which will go through a mostly industrial part of town that includes some homes, parks and bike routes — has at least one significant negative impact.

Handing the decision to a community panel seems to be a way for the city to save face on what will ultimately be an unpopular decision. These are the three potential routes.

1: William Street

This route has a number of complications, the biggest being that it would run through Strathcona Park, further reducing the amount of green space on the east side of Vancouver and separating the community gardens from the park. This option would require the Vancouver Park Board to endorse a plan to reduce the size of a well-loved and well-used park, a very uncomfortable decision for any politician.

2: Malkin Avenue

The biggest consideration for this route is that it would force the many large businesses that operate along Produce Row to relocate. Produce Row, a cluster of wholesalers on the edge of Chinatown, was a historical hub of employment for many newcomers and remains an important centre of food and vegetable distribution today.

The logistics and economic impacts of this displacement have not yet been presented to the public.

3: National Avenue

This third option may be the least economically feasible. It would require the construction of a large overpass to span existing railway tracks, and the relocation of the Chess Street Fire Training Facility, the Heavy Urban Search and Rescue site and some of the National Works Yard. It would also result in a complicated dead end into Clark Drive in close proximity to the very busy First Avenue crossing. Clark Drive is the main truck route from the port as well as a main commuter route from Vancouver to Richmond and other lower mainland municipalities. A new intersection at National Avenue two blocks north of the already busy First and Clark intersection could lead to more congestion than it currently has, which is bumper to bumper at rush hour.


Other considerations

There are other potential impacts that have been mostly kept under the radar.

The road reconfiguration could hurt Trillium Park — a relatively new park that’s well used as it has two of a very limited number of all weather fields in the city. A new arterial road will make the park hard to access as it will be isolated to the south of a new road network, with no provisions to preserve the nearby parking.

The reconfiguration may also isolate the Commercial Drive neighbourhood from Strathcona. This could have significant impact on the Eastside Culture Crawl — the largest event to promote local artists in Vancouver. The Culture Crawl currently flows seamlessly between the two neighbourhoods, but with the new road network, this connectivity may be halted.

The third great unknown is how the new location for St. Paul’s Hospital will figure into this road network. The new hospital campus is currently being planned for the False Creek Flats area. There is little to no information available on how the design of the new hospital campus fits in with the road network options.

The cost of upgrading and maintaining the existing viaducts was one of the main reasons given for removing them. Unfortunately, given the lack of detail provided about the proposed transportation routes, it is impossible to fully understand the potential price of a reconfiguration.

There is a fourth option that the city has not yet proposed.

4: Rely on paid experts

Community consultation doesn’t always work out.

Strathcona residents were asked for their input when the removal of the viaducts was first proposed. The residents requested that the city reroute the bulk of the traffic that currently flows from downtown on Prior Street through their neighbourhood. The residents were hoping for an alternative road network as the primary route from Main Street to the east.

While city staff assured Strathcona residents that they would be exploring an alternative route, they did not provide information about the tradeoffs that might have to be made such as the potential loss of green space in their neighbourhood, limited access to Trillium Park, or the negative impacts on the Eastside Culture Crawl. When the community later learned that they might lose their community gardens, a number of activists formed Save Strathcona Park in response.

Had the people who engaged in the public consultation known all the impacts of an alternative transportation route, they may have provided very different input.

This is why the city needs to provide a full cost-benefit analysis of the road options that will take the viaducts’ place.

Despite the army of paid experts who work for the city, this critical decision is being offloaded to a community panel who may or may not have knowledge of transportation planning, and who may or may not have access to the amount of detailed information needed to make such a complex decision.

A lot is up in the air regarding the three options. Could increased traffic diverted onto Clark Drive affect commuters and the port? What are the costs of sacrificing park land? What are the costs of displacing a major food distribution hub?

From my perspective, the design of a community panel is a bit of urban planning sleight of hand. Let’s not put a panel of community members into the uncomfortable and unpaid position of choosing one of the three evils. Let informed, expert judgment pave the way. [Tyee]

Source:
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/05/02/Vancouver-Viaduct-Traffic-Dilemma/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5440  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2019, 10:14 PM
GenWhy? GenWhy? is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 4,826
The road options you mention are not taking the place of the viaducts. All traffic patterns will largely remain the same. Most likely the City (at "X" date years from now) will choose Prior.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:29 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.