Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

(A) Dunsmuir backup: Lane reductions by the Vision government: same people trying to demolish viaducts.
Expo/Pacific (no lane reduction): When are they really backed up? Everytime I'm there, traffic flow is always pretty smooth. Your krogan toilet example is a hyperbole.

(B) They are not bridges to nowhere. They are quick links to the downtown Vancouver from the eastside, and vice versa.

(C) Or wouldn't it be better if we have a good downtown-Northshore road link AS WELL AS a skytrain? Or would you rather propose that we tear down all bridges because they would be "clogged immediately half a year later"(hyperbolic misinformation) anyway?

(D) That's not an argument.

(E) Downtown is hell for emergency vehicles? Yeah maybe on those roads backed up as a result of lane reductions.
Funny, but last time I checked, lanes on Burrard Bridge were reduced to accommodate bike lanes due to "underutilization". That bridge is the main access to St Paul's. So who is giving out misinformation here? Isn't it the Vision government claiming that Cambie, Burrard and Granville bridges are all underutilized?

A) If you'd gone with pedestrians like mezzanine did, you might have a point. One lane moves about thirty-two vehicles a minute, which is hardly carmageddon - especially when the real chokepoints are Citadel and Main and Prior.

Your experience is not everybody else's. My experience is crawling from Carrall to Burrard. The viaducts are just like every other road: jammed at peak and somewhat calmer off-peak. Will that jam increase without them? Possibly, but let's not pretend like everything's fine and dandy with them.

B) An east side and downtown that are quickly merging, and that will soon surround the viaducts on all sides and leave them completely without a purpose except to skip four blocks' worth of downtown.

C) If the City "doesn't have money" for a $400 million removal, it most definitely does not have the $5+ billion needed for a third crossing, another superhighway, and buying & demolishing half of West Van and Coal Harbour.
There's already a good link - it's called the Upper Levels. The problem is that it isn't linked very well to the Lions Gate. Care to suggest to the NIMBYs that they should sell their homes to build a better interchange? Or should we just build SkyTrain so that everybody who doesn't need to drive then proceeds to do so and leaves the roads much less congested for the rest?

We can't do anything about the ocean. We can do something about empty space.

"Hyperbolic misinformation" is acting like downtown Vancouver will turn into The Purge if two 2-lane freewayettes are replaced with a 6-lane road.

D) Yours never was an argument to begin with. "Think of all the taxpayer money!" is stupid, and it makes everything else you've said look stupid by association.

E) See A and below. Also, most of downtown's street upgrades have only cost half a lane and some parking.

Originally Posted by Vin

I wonder if emergency vehicles would get stuck trying go down the new ramp to Pacific Boulevard, then cross like a gazzillion traffic lights before finally arriving at the hospital.

In case you forgot, traffic lights don't apply to emergency vehicles. They can run reds and use the empty oncoming side of a six-laner, but the only solution for an ambulance stuck behind two clogged lanes on a viaduct is welding a cowcatcher to the front.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Are they? Which part of Vancouver has outgrown the Viaducts? I don't really think they divide Vancouver from anything, which is the reasoning for most of the el-freeway removals across N. America.

I mean, it would free up land, but if that's the only reason, it's not really worth it for $100M a block. There are better deals out there- like Broadway.

I think the only thing that divides anything are the Creekside and Andy Livingstone Park. Big deal.

One could argue that downtown would've already merged with East Van if it weren't for the viaducts (that, and Concord sitting on the lots). Add the development for the Flats, NEFC, St Paul's, Main Street, Mount Pleasant, Chinatown and Hastings, and sooner or later Georgia and Dunsmuir will begin and end within downtown Vancouver; at that point, they'll just be in the way.

Originally Posted by fredinno

We don't know if that's one idiot on the Vancouver Sun, or the prevailing opinion amongst the protestors. Even if it is, it could just be that those people hadn't thought as far to think about the consequences of their implied 'solution'.

Remember, many of the same people in the Grandview-Woodlands who fought the freeway also fought the Expo's elevated guideways.

Heh, I doubt they think at all. The NIMBY/CAVE/BANANA response to everything is to say "NO" as loudly and frequently as necessary until everything goes back to the way they like it. And since that'll never happen...

Originally Posted by fredinno

Honestly, we should build a Hastings Subway first before bringing down the viaducts.

Yeah, I've made that point a couple times. But there's no reason why one can't pay for the other - TransLink reps at the Broadway open houses have hinted that the next line (after UBC/Langley) will be exactly that.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

B) An east side and downtown that are quickly merging, and that will soon surround the viaducts on all sides and leave them completely without a purpose except to skip four blocks' worth of downtown.

Wouldn't that make the Viaducts more useful, not less? People going to Chinatown/Stratchona/Flats have a fast track into downtown proper, and since Gastown is always going to separate the two lobes at least partially, there's always going to be a need for that inter-neighborhood connectivity.
Especially if Stratchona is built out more as a residential neighborhood, as it is now.

Densification is going to make people use infrastructure more, not less.

In case you forgot, traffic lights don't apply to emergency vehicles. They can run reds and use the empty oncoming side of a six-laner, but the only solution for an ambulance stuck behind two clogged lanes on a viaduct is welding a cowcatcher to the front.

? I don't get it.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

One could argue that downtown would've already merged with East Van if it weren't for the viaducts (that, and Concord sitting on the lots). Add the development for the Flats, NEFC, St Paul's, Main Street, Mount Pleasant, Chinatown and Hastings, and sooner or later Georgia and Dunsmuir will begin and end within downtown Vancouver; at that point, they'll just be in the way.



Heh, I doubt they think at all. The NIMBY/CAVE/BANANA response to everything is to say "NO" as loudly and frequently as necessary until everything goes back to the way they like it. And since that'll never happen...



Yeah, I've made that point a couple times. But there's no reason why one can't pay for the other - TransLink reps at the Broadway open houses have hinted that the next line (after UBC/Langley) will be exactly that.

NEFC is 2 block wide, vs the 9-10 blocks total between False Creek and Burrard Inlet.

1-2 are taken up by the railway/port lands, and 1 by Andy Livingstone Park. Skid Row and lack of Skytrain is probably a bigger reason behind Downtown not expanding East. (it is now- finally- as Gastown has fully gentrified, Railtown has become the next frontier.) Certainly the empty land and viaducts don't help, but it's not really a massive deal in comparison to everything else that's preventing the area from reaching its potential.



I doubt the money from land sales is going to be enough to make removing the viaducts worth it, let alone finance a Hastings Subway. Remember, 100$M a block. And they can't even go that high because of the viewcones.

Remember that part of the money was supposed to go to improving Pacific Blvd to compensate for the lost road capacity. Removing road capacity should be something done after the road capacity is no longer needed, not the other way around.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Wouldn't that make the Viaducts more useful, not less? People going to Chinatown/Stratchona/Flats have a fast track into downtown proper, and since Gastown is always going to separate the two lobes at least partially, there's always going to be a need for that inter-neighborhood connectivity.
Especially if Stratchona is built out more as a residential neighborhood, as it is now.

Densification is going to make people use infrastructure more, not less.

From my experience, most people going in-between those places use Quebec, Main, Hastings, and the regular street grid.

Increased density/population also means more traffic; we're talking about an underbuilt highway that's 2-3 lanes wide and effectively the length of one SkyTrain stop, and that doesn't add anything to the streets below it. I'm not completely on board with their traffic argument, but the integration argument makes more and more sense... just wish that New Urbanists weren't so opposed to common-sense grade separation.

Originally Posted by fredinno

? I don't get it.

Since everybody stops and pulls over for ambulances, they can often weave out onto the oncoming traffic lane, then back in. Can't do that on the viaducts, they'd just have to sit there until the next green light... possibly the one after that, if there's too many pedestrians.

Originally Posted by fredinno

NEFC is 2 block wide, vs the 9-10 blocks total between False Creek and Burrard Inlet.

1-2 are taken up by the railway/port lands, and 1 by Andy Livingstone Park. Skid Row and lack of Skytrain is probably a bigger reason behind Downtown not expanding East. (it is now- finally- as Gastown has fully gentrified, Railtown has become the next frontier.) Certainly the empty land and viaducts don't help, but it's not really a massive deal in comparison to everything else that's preventing the area from reaching its potential.

I doubt the money from land sales is going to be enough to make removing the viaducts worth it, let alone finance a Hastings Subway. Remember, 100$M a block. And they can't even go that high because of the viewcones.

Remember that part of the money was supposed to go to improving Pacific Blvd to compensate for the lost road capacity. Removing road capacity should be something done after the road capacity is no longer needed, not the other way around.

Yeah, Andy Livingstone's another obstacle. So's Concord's squatt-dering (squander-squatting doesn't have the same ring to it). But getting rid of Georgia and Dunsmuir'd sure help. Even Strathcona's gentrifying now.

Actually, City Council approved a breach or two of the viewcones around the stadiums, so long as it was rentals. I expect the project to at least break even.

The traffic sim, modeled on current levels, predicts little to no disruption. A bit too utopian, maybe, but it's not a catastrophic reduction in capacity.

[officedweller]

I wonder if that simulation accounts for funnelling traffic heading to downtown up the new Georgia Ramp on game days / nights?
That ramp is located between BC Place and Rogers Arena.
At least with Dunsmuir Viaduct, it's a bit removed from BC Place and Georgia Viaduct has railings / jersey barriers rather than just curbs.
The new ramp will just be another street and people will wander all over it.
I also wonder about the grade of that ramp on snowy days.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Game/concert night usually has cops directing traffic and other crowd control measures.

[officedweller]

But the cops will also stop traffic too.

[Migrant_Coconut]

On game night, they stop everybody! It's like an event is an excuse to ignore traffic lights. With traffic cops, it's at least pedestrians -> cars -> pedestrians -> cars, not a free-for-all; add waist-high fences to the Ramp, and it should be manageable.

As for snow, downtown's going to be a nightmare regardless.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

From my experience, most people going in-between those places use Quebec, Main, Hastings, and the regular street grid.

Increased density/population also means more traffic; we're talking about an underbuilt highway that's 2-3 lanes wide and effectively the length of one SkyTrain stop, and that doesn't add anything to the streets below it. I'm not completely on board with their traffic argument, but the integration argument makes more and more sense... just wish that New Urbanists weren't so opposed to common-sense grade separation.



Since everybody stops and pulls over for ambulances, they can often weave out onto the oncoming traffic lane, then back in. Can't do that on the viaducts, they'd just have to sit there until the next green light... possibly the one after that, if there's too many pedestrians.



Yeah, Andy Livingstone's another obstacle. So's Concord's squatt-dering (squander-squatting doesn't have the same ring to it). But getting rid of Georgia and Dunsmuir'd sure help. Even Strathcona's gentrifying now.

Actually, City Council approved a breach or two of the viewcones around the stadiums, so long as it was rentals. I expect the project to at least break even.

The traffic sim, modeled on current levels, predicts little to no disruption. A bit too utopian, maybe, but it's not a catastrophic reduction in capacity.

Andy Livingstone is supposed to be extended south to merge with Creekside Park. There's still a 'wall' of sorts once you remove the viaducts.

I was talking about the land under the viaducts- the development land that would actually be gained from removing the viaducts., rather than building around it.
That's right next to Chinatown, which is not likely to get viewcone breaches. (it may not even get to the viewcones, which is the sadder part).
Not to mention, the viewcone breaches near the stadium were largely to improve massing, less density.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Andy Livingstone is supposed to be extended south to merge with Creekside Park. There's still a 'wall' of sorts once you remove the viaducts.

I was talking about the land under the viaducts- the development land that would actually be gained from removing the viaducts., rather than building around it.
That's right next to Chinatown, which is not likely to get viewcone breaches. (it may not even get to the viewcones, which is the sadder part).
Not to mention, the viewcone breaches near the stadium were largely to improve massing, less density.

Yes the super duper road that will divide the parks and community even more

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

A) If you'd gone with pedestrians like mezzanine did, you might have a point. One lane moves about thirty-two vehicles a minute, which is hardly carmageddon - especially when the real chokepoints are Citadel and Main and Prior.

Your experience is not everybody else's. My experience is crawling from Carrall to Burrard. The viaducts are just like every other road: jammed at peak and somewhat calmer off-peak. Will that jam increase without them? Possibly, but let's not pretend like everything's fine and dandy with them.

B) An east side and downtown that are quickly merging, and that will soon surround the viaducts on all sides and leave them completely without a purpose except to skip four blocks' worth of downtown.

C) If the City "doesn't have money" for a $400 million removal, it most definitely does not have the $5+ billion needed for a third crossing, another superhighway, and buying & demolishing half of West Van and Coal Harbour.
There's already a good link - it's called the Upper Levels. The problem is that it isn't linked very well to the Lions Gate. Care to suggest to the NIMBYs that they should sell their homes to build a better interchange? Or should we just build SkyTrain so that everybody who doesn't need to drive then proceeds to do so and leaves the roads much less congested for the rest?

We can't do anything about the ocean. We can do something about empty space.

"Hyperbolic misinformation" is acting like downtown Vancouver will turn into The Purge if two 2-lane freewayettes are replaced with a 6-lane road.

D) Yours never was an argument to begin with. "Think of all the taxpayer money!" is stupid, and it makes everything else you've said look stupid by association.

E) See A and below. Also, most of downtown's street upgrades have only cost half a lane and some parking.



In case you forgot, traffic lights don't apply to emergency vehicles. They can run reds and use the empty oncoming side of a six-laner, but the only solution for an ambulance stuck behind two clogged lanes on a viaduct is welding a cowcatcher to the front.

What a kind person you are. Funny you took all the time to reply to a person who sounds "stupid".

That makes it pointless to debate further with an intelligent person like yourself.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Andy Livingstone is supposed to be extended south to merge with Creekside Park. There's still a 'wall' of sorts once you remove the viaducts.

I was talking about the land under the viaducts- the development land that would actually be gained from removing the viaducts., rather than building around it.
That's right next to Chinatown, which is not likely to get viewcone breaches. (it may not even get to the viewcones, which is the sadder part).
Not to mention, the viewcone breaches near the stadium were largely to improve massing, less density.

True, which is why the new park should be as urban as possible. The old "lawn" concept just replaces a big empty grey space with a big empty green space.

If they're going to redevelop the area, why not all of it? The way I'm starting to see it, either A) the viaducts come down anyway, and we're stuck with half-parcels and underbuilt streets, or B), the viaducts stay up, and thirty years later it's a kilometre-long parking lot that doesn't connect to any of the towers surrounding it.

Originally Posted by Vin

Yes the super duper road that will divide the parks and community even more

Hence the overpass and all the pedestrian crossings. We can argue about the merits of at-grade, but there's a concerted effort to maintain the present level of walkability (which isn't that great to begin with).

Originally Posted by Vin

What a kind person you are. Funny you took all the time to reply to a person who sounds "stupid".

That makes it pointless to debate further with an intelligent person like yourself.

Seeing as your usual M.O. is to in turn, post a rude, equally long rebuttal and/or call the poster themselves stupid, I'll take that as a compliment.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

True, which is why the new park should be as urban as possible. The old "lawn" concept just replaces a big empty grey space with a big empty green space.

If they're going to redevelop the area, why not all of it? The way I'm starting to see it, either A) the viaducts come down anyway, and we're stuck with half-parcels and underbuilt streets, or B), the viaducts stay up, and thirty years later it's a kilometre-long parking lot that doesn't connect to any of the towers surrounding it.

I said I liked the old park better, not that I supported the old park period. There is a concerted effort, admittedly, to make the park as 'urban' as possible, but if you're planning on connecting East Van better, ignore park-construction entirely- move the park facilities to Larwill Park, and move the 2/3rds of the site that was to be used by the VAG to the land slated for the new park right above Creekside Park. The site is actually slightly larger than the land currently reserved for the VAG, and it still pretty accessible.

If the new VAG building was worth showing off, it'd be a nice centrepiece as an 'entrance' to Downtown, and would contrast with Science World.

Though a park on the lands were promised as part of the plan, so that's not viable.


I guess you're assuming an Earthquake happens with A)? If so, I'd have way bigger concerns than underbuilt streets.

The Viaducts are actually 3-lanes- but one lane is being used for bikes. Moving the bike lanes to a separate viaduct in between the road viaducts would increase capacity.
Expo and Pacific also have parking lanes on the sides of their roads that could be removed during rush hour.

If you're merging the Granville Bridge with the towers surrounding it, and facilities below it (Vancouver House, sort of, and that weird elevator concept for Granville Island), there's no reason you can't do the same for the viaducts. After all, Vancouver is in dire need of covered public spaces.

The fact the viaducts are sterile has more to do with the fact we haven't bothered to improve them and the land around them more than anything else.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The Viaducts are actually 3-lanes- but one lane is being used for bikes. Moving the bike lanes to a separate viaduct in between the road viaducts would increase capacity.
Expo and Pacific also have parking lanes on the sides of their roads that could be removed during rush hour.

If you're merging the Granville Bridge with the towers surrounding it, and facilities below it (Vancouver House, sort of, and that weird elevator concept for Granville Island), there's no reason you can't do the same for the viaducts. After all, Vancouver is in dire need of covered public spaces.

The fact the viaducts are sterile has more to do with the fact we haven't bothered to improve them and the land around them more than anything else.

IMHO a very good observation. There is space down there, and they did nothing to use it better. And all these other gimmicks that reduce lane-space (like GB elevators) suck.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I said I liked the old park better, not that I supported the old park period. There is a concerted effort, admittedly, to make the park as 'urban' as possible, but if you're planning on connecting East Van better, ignore park-construction entirely- move the park facilities to Larwill Park, and move the 2/3rds of the site that was to be used by the VAG to the land slated for the new park right above Creekside Park. The site is actually slightly larger than the land currently reserved for the VAG, and it still pretty accessible.

If the new VAG building was worth showing off, it'd be a nice centrepiece as an 'entrance' to Downtown, and would contrast with Science World.

Though a park on the lands were promised as part of the plan, so that's not viable.

The other problem is that most of that site is industrial sludge; there's actually a pumping station in the corner that prevents it from leaking into False Creek. So development's limited to east of Abbott/Carrall anyway.

Originally Posted by fredinno

I guess you're assuming an Earthquake happens with A)? If so, I'd have way bigger concerns than underbuilt streets.

The Viaducts are actually 3-lanes- but one lane is being used for bikes. Moving the bike lanes to a separate viaduct in between the road viaducts would increase capacity.
Expo and Pacific also have parking lanes on the sides of their roads that could be removed during rush hour.

If you're merging the Granville Bridge with the towers surrounding it, and facilities below it (Vancouver House, sort of, and that weird elevator concept for Granville Island), there's no reason you can't do the same for the viaducts. After all, Vancouver is in dire need of covered public spaces.

The fact the viaducts are sterile has more to do with the fact we haven't bothered to improve them and the land around them more than anything else.

I'm no fan of bike lanes myself, but again, capacity is limited more by the intersections at the end than the viaducts themselves. Can't - and won't - close Citadel or Beatty, so the only option even with three lanes is to sit there waiting for a green light.

Nope, assuming thirty years as normal. Other posters have observed that we can beautify and integrate the viaducts (Rogers Arena West has a concourse attached to Georgia, and South would've too if Vision hadn't rejected it), yes, but we'd still run into the same problem - they're going to look less and less useful over time as they fill up more and more while not connecting to any future neighbourhood in-between. Might as well build the super road and focus on making its traffic move faster.

Originally Posted by trofirhen

IMHO a very good observation. There is space down there, and they did nothing to use it better. And all these other gimmicks that reduce lane-space (like GB elevators) suck.

I've walked across Granville at rush hour; IMO it can lose two lanes without any problem.

Much more concerning is how an elevator will punch through the middle of the deck without weakening anything.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The other problem is that most of that site is industrial sludge; there's actually a pumping station in the corner that prevents it from leaking into False Creek. So development's limited to east of Abbott/Carrall anyway.

Source?
The NEFC plan lists Andy Livingstone as holding most of the contaminated soils/sludge- not the area where the new park was to be built.

Do you have a source for the NEFC park area as being composed of industrial sludge?

I'm no fan of bike lanes myself, but again, capacity is limited more by the intersections at the end than the viaducts themselves. Can't - and won't - close Citadel or Beatty, so the only option even with three lanes is to sit there waiting for a green light.

Nope, assuming thirty years as normal. Other posters have observed that we can beautify and integrate the viaducts (Rogers Arena West has a concourse attached to Georgia, and South would've too if Vision hadn't rejected it), yes, but we'd still run into the same problem - they're going to look less and less useful over time as they fill up more and more while not connecting to any future neighbourhood in-between. Might as well build the super road and focus on making its traffic move faster.

You're also assuming traffic into Downtown will continue to increase which may not be the case (and won't if the trend-line continues): https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/08/05/in-vancouver-traffic-decreases-as-population-rises/

The figures showed that on major streets, traffic has dropped 20 to 30 percent since 2006.

We have seen a trend, a downward trend over the past 15 years – vehicles entering the city, vehicles entering the downtown, we have seen a downward trend on vehicles crossing the Burrard Bridge, we have seen a downward trend on vehicles entering and leaving [University of British Columbia].
So we’re seeing those continual drops city-wide.

Mind you, this is part of the rationale Vancouver has been using to repurpose road lanes across the city (including the viaducts). Even in a local context, the Vancouver Streetcar and Hastings Subway would provide good transit alternatives. My understanding of the super-road proposal was that two of the road lanes could be converted into LRT later on (same as the Port Mann). You may also be able to convert two of the Viaduct lanes into Streetcar lanes as well.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Source?
The NEFC plan lists Andy Livingstone as holding most of the contaminated soils/sludge- not the area where the new park was to be built.

Do you have a source for the NEFC park area as being composed of industrial sludge?

Here you go. There's a tiny pocket of clean space directly east of Carrall, but I don't see the point.

Originally Posted by fredinno

You're also assuming traffic into Downtown will continue to increase which may not be the case (and won't if the trend-line continues): https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/08/05/in-vancouver-traffic-decreases-as-population-rises/

Mind you, this is part of the rationale Vancouver has been using to repurpose road lanes across the city (including the viaducts). Even in a local context, the Vancouver Streetcar and Hastings Subway would provide good transit alternatives. My understanding of the super-road proposal was that two of the road lanes could be converted into LRT later on (same as the Port Mann). You may also be able to convert two of the Viaduct lanes into Streetcar lanes as well.

That argument cuts both ways though: "if traffic's decreasing, why keep the viaducts?" It's an ongoing chicken-or-egg argument.

I've mentioned that the NEFC planners' current intent is for the streetcar to run in mixed-traffic. Yes, I know that's a bad idea. TransLink won't even consider a bus route on the viaducts though, likely for the same reason as the ambulances.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

True, which is why the new park should be as urban as possible. The old "lawn" concept just replaces a big empty grey space with a big empty green space.

(1)If they're going to redevelop the area, why not all of it? The way I'm starting to see it, either A) the viaducts come down anyway, and we're stuck with half-parcels and underbuilt streets, or B), (2)the viaducts stay up, and thirty years later it's a kilometre-long parking lot that doesn't connect to any of the towers surrounding it.



(3)Hence the overpass and all the pedestrian crossings. We can argue about the merits of at-grade, but there's a concerted effort to maintain the present level of walkability (which isn't that great to begin with).



(4)Seeing as your usual M.O. is to in turn, post a rude, equally long rebuttal and/or call the poster themselves stupid, I'll take that as a compliment.

(1) Because not all of it needs redevelopment. If the viaducts are coming down to be replaced with something else more superior, then go for it. Otherwise it's just a big waste of public funds. As it is, the traffic dispersal methodology for the future isn't even finalized.

(2) The viaducts do not have to connect to any of the future towers because they are not there for the purpose. The current roads underneath can do just that. In fact, they will be calmer and way more walkable than the new super road.

(3) All the points here are already addressed with the presence of the viaducts. The area is actually very walkable, but the City is making is less so by abandoning it and now allowing new constructions for decades.

(4) Don't you dare turn this around. You were the one who said my comments were stupid. Geez.

Your own words:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

There's plenty of arguments in favour of keeping Georgia and Dunsmuir the way they are - I've stated my concerns about at-grade design and commuters ignoring traffic lights.

The sunk-cost fallacy is not such an argument. And invoking the generation that fought tooth and nail to block the viaducts as a reason to keep the viaducts is just Insane Troll Logic. It made no sense the first time you said it, and it makes even less now.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

D) Yours never was an argument to begin with. "Think of all the taxpayer money!" is stupid, and it makes everything else you've said look stupid by association.

[twoNeurons]

The reality is that Concord got a whiff of the viaducts coming down, were salivating at the prospect of the land being worth more, and decide to hold out. If it were me, I'd say... forget it. Keep the viaducts, let the Concord land sit there. There's nothing wrong with having vacant land in your downtown core for a future generation.

Removing the viaducts NOW is pure and simple political legacy grandstanding. It's just the desire to leave a mark on the city that you can look back and say... "I did that"

IS it REALLY a bad thing to have vacant valuable land close to the downtown core 30 years from now? Leaving the viaducts as they stand forces developers to either get creative with building design or just leave the land vacant. BOTH situations are a WIN for Vancouver. Not EVERY square cm of downtown has to pretty.

Imagine if we had filled downtown with 70s-era skyscrapers because there was vacant land. Do I think the Viaducts NEED to be there? Not necessarily. I think downtown has crept east and will continue to do so (where else would you go). Could people in the 60s imagine the glass towers we have? Could they have imagined the internet changing how office workers work and commute? Could they have imagined self-driving cars? Who knows what 30 years will bring and we've had a LOT of development in the last 20 years. There's nothing wrong with letting some space rest for a couple of decades.

ANY argument that makes the claim that the cost of viaduct demolition being covered by the development fees will apply even more so 20 years from now. The only problem with that... is that the people in charge now will be retired or dead and won't live to see this happen. AND THAT is the REAL reason the viaduct removal was being championed now, instead of when they're closer to their end of life.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

(1) Because not all of it needs redevelopment. If the viaducts are coming down to be replaced with something else more superior, then go for it. Otherwise it's just a big waste of public funds. As it is, the traffic dispersal methodology for the future isn't even finalized.

(2) The viaducts do not have to connect to any of the future towers because they are not there for the purpose. The current roads underneath can do just that. In fact, they will be calmer and way more walkable than the new super road.

(3) All the points here are already addressed with the presence of the viaducts. The area is actually very walkable, but the City is making is less so by abandoning it and now allowing new constructions for decades.

Clearly we've had two very different experiences with Pacific. Carrall has two crossings, Quebec has three; both, deferring to vehicle traffic, take a considerably long time to cycle back to a Walk light, and all the in-between is concrete, fences and trailers. Simply giving each street one crossing, more pavement, urban or park space and pedestrian overpasses is a net increase in walkability.

Hardly the same result if we keep the existing network. Same redevelopment, same increase in population and traffic. Now the place looks like Robson or Georgia, and all the extra people are getting in each others' way on too-small roads or sidewalks.
And the viaducts' capacity is useless for that, because they only connect Quebec and Prior to Beatty... which is also backed up. Might as well replace a jam with a more integrated jam.

Originally Posted by Vin

(4) Don't you dare turn this around. You were the one who said my comments were stupid. Geez.

I can, and I will. You've never had a problem mocking other posters' posts and reasoning... it happens to you, and suddenly there's a problem?

Never once called you stupid. I called your comments stupid. On the one blue moon when somebody does that on SSP - sometimes to me, sometimes deservedly - one can either accept being wrong, or try to prove that they're not wrong. You've done neither. You've just dug yourself another hole.