Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[GenWhy?]

A lot of "magic" at work to possibly support the lack of a need for 1960's incomplete infrastructure

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Agreed. 10 years ago there was very little cycling infrastructure, but with its gradual implementation City-wide we have seen it as one of the quickest and largest growing modes of commuting in the City. Calculating the 2011-2016 Stats Canada cycling data for commuting modal share did not "start from zero".

Commuting by foot is at roughly over 20% modal share in the City and within the same amount of time grew the same percent as the above cycling data by percent.

Vehicle counts into/out of downtown are not increasing, even with our Regional population growth, and Metro Core employment growth. All other modes are increasing, especially in the suburban cities.

Historically, from 1996-2016, Metro Vancouver commute by car went from roughly 77% to about 69%. By 2021 Census would not be surprised to see it at another historic low of 65% for the Metro. Hopefully by 2026 the Broadway extension will be included.

If you want to go all the way back to 1985, commute by car was just over 80% in the Metro. Mind you Metro population in 1981 was 1.17 million and in 2016 was 2.46 million.

I'm not sure how good data on commuting was before 1996, when the question was added to the census.

Here are the City of Vancouver numbers for drivers (journey to work mode)
1996 55.1%
2006 51.5%
2016 45.4%

For walking
1996 10.6%
2006 12.2%
2016 13.7%

For bike
1996 3.3%
2006 3.7%
2016 6.1%

Transit
1996 10.9%
2006 13.1%
2016 16.9%

The City of Vancouver is included in the Metro numbers, so almost all the improvement for Metro in walk/bike is because of what's happening in the city. If you look at the rest of Metro, walk and bike have barely changed as a proportion over 20 years, but car drivers are down 5.1% to 71.4% in 2016, and transit is up 6% to 16.9%. The Evergreen extension wasn't open for the 2016 census, and we know bus use has risen a lot as well, so that change should be continuing through to the 2021 census.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Take it with a grain of salt, but a friend over the weekend was telling me a City transportation engineer, with old incoming/outgoing data from the 60's and 70's (mind you we're much more accurate in collecting data today), found even with lane closures and population increase, the Downtown vehicle traffic is the same as the 1960's! IF this were true... mind blown.

It was certainly true in 2010, that traffic volumes were below 1965 volumes. It's relatively easy to count traffic entering Downtown, because there aren't many roads or bridges that you have to count vehicles. I don't think volumes have gone up very much in the past 9 years. That's all vehicles - not just cars.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

how much has office space grown since the 70's? not much really? I am sure someone can provide the facts.

Will all these new projects underway now have an impact on traffic?

In 1975 there were 11.8 million sq ft of office space Downtown. At the end of 2018 it was 27.3 million square feet. The number of extra office jobs will be far more than double the 1970s number, because in recent years there's been far greater efficiency in using space, and fewer private office spaces for managers, so space per worker has dropped a lot. That has been happening since the mid 1990s, which in part explains how Downtown saw very little new built for around 20 years, but job numbers continued to increase.

The 10 additional buildings that are being built now shouldn't make too much difference to traffic, as there's not much net additional parking being added. Four buildings are replacing parkades, so the spaces are mostly switching to the basement. In future projects don't even have to provide parking - although developers haven't been keen to go there yet.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Bikes being a joke aside, bus ridership's steadily gaining despite little to no extra roadspace. Combined with the SkyTrain, it's more or less competitive with driving nowadays.



Probably not the best idea to agree with a user whose only yardstick is building height.

We've got Granville, Robson and Davie busy all year, with NEFC soon to follow once the viaducts come down. With due respect to Edmonton, it's the only Canadian metro I know where downtown is cheaper than the suburbs; much of the entertainment is short festivals.



Indy, my mistake. Point remains - if you're upset with the city's traffic now, can you imagine the disruption if we'd kept the races?

Paris: had a World's Fair in the Victorian era, and a visionary local; was almost shot down by NIMBYs. We got Science World.
Rome: capital of a giant ancient empire that got their kicks through conquest and slave fights. We could try restoring the First Nations villages in Stanley Park? That's the only ancient ruin we've got.
Tokyo: the one part of the city that was open to nanban. '89 market crash temporarily killed it, which is kind of where Granville is now, so give the GED another 10+ years.
London: major throughfare in a major city. Almost got torn down and replaced with a highway (hint hint hint).
Vegas: started as a mafia hideout. I don't want any more money laundering than we have now, TYVM.

Several centuries, even millennia, of random global events and Big Money. Trying to reach historical/cultural/economic parity is a pipe dream. Spending money (which we don't have) building something like Brasilia or the Cairo replacement would be equally wasted.

In terms of civilization, Vancouver's in the ass-end of the planet; it's been around as a city less than two hundred years, and half of that was spent being a forest. Sure, we can become good at cultural attractions, but since we don't have culture to begin with, maybe we start by playing to our strengths? Got a few ideas in the last post.

At any rate, we are WAY off-topic here. Maybe we should set up a separate amenities thread.

We were competitive just fine in the 1950's, 60's 70's, 80's, even into the 90's. There was a time when we punched well above our weight for vibrancy in our civic core and were probably the second best in the country. Today, we are not; period.
Us being young is a poor excuse. Other smaller, N American cities are even younger than us and seem to manage just fine. Edmonton is young, but managed to build a nice entertainment district, (that is just going to get better as the years unfold).
Again, no reason what-so-ever for Edmonton to be beating us at-anything-EVER. (other than being cold).
And we don't need to spend any money to accomplish this. Just leave the infrastructure we currently have alone, and enact a few policy changes, and you'll see private capital rolling in. But that would require saying no to the development lobby in the city (the real reason for the viaducts' demise, don't kid yourself), which will almost certainly never happen.

For the Indy, its over a weekend. The money they brought in to the city's coffers coupled with the entertainment they provided, more than made up for any traffic inconvenience the event might have caused.

But in order to have any of these, you need to have the ability to handle increases/changes to commuting to the downtown core on a moments notice. Removing perfectly good infrastructure goes against this.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

We were competitive just fine in the 1950's, 60's 70's, 80's, even into the 90's. There was a time when we punched well above our weight for vibrancy in our civic core and were probably the second best in the country. Today, we are not; period.
Us being young is a poor excuse. Other smaller, N American cities are even younger than us and seem to manage just fine. Edmonton is young, but managed to build a nice entertainment district, (that is just going to get better as the years unfold).
Again, no reason what-so-ever for Edmonton to be beating us at-anything-EVER. (other than being cold)...

... For the Indy, its over a weekend. The money they brought in to the city's coffers coupled with the entertainment they provided, more than made up for any traffic inconvenience the event might have caused.

YMMV - my social circle thinks that Vancouver was a dump pre-Nineties, and that Edmonton's much the same now outside of the (admittedly, many) festivals. Their vibrancy seems to be a very rapid boom-bust cycle rather than actual consistent foot traffic.

And congestion costs Canada about $455 million a day, which kind of neuters the money generated by the Indy. Reopened the amenities thread in order to talk about this kind of stuff, maybe move this part of the argument there?

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

And we don't need to spend any money to accomplish this. Just leave the infrastructure we currently have alone, and enact a few policy changes, and you'll see private capital rolling in. But that would require saying no to the development lobby in the city (the real reason for the viaducts' demise, don't kid yourself), which will almost certainly never happen...

... But in order to have any of these, you need to have the ability to handle increases/changes to commuting to the downtown core on a moments notice. Removing perfectly good infrastructure goes against this.

Real estate money was most definitely a part of Vision's decision... yet now that the council is over a third NIMBY, they're still going ahead with it. It almost seems like it's a decent plan regardless of initial motive.

There's private capital coming in regardless - the proposed Buddhist art museum, for example. What we need is another twenty or so years to be put on the map for good.

Said changes to commuting are happening now, as people switch to transit and walking. Facilitation of both requires the removal of the viaducts.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

YMMV - my family's of the opinion that Edmonton's a ghost town outside of the (admittedly, many) festivals. Their vibrancy seems to be a very rapid boom-bust cycle rather than actual consistent foot traffic.
And congestion costs Canada about $455 million a day, which kind of neuters the money generated by the Indy.

Reopened the amenities thread in order to talk about this kind of stuff, maybe move this part of the discussion there?



Real estate money was most definitely a part of Vision's decision... yet now that the council is over a third NIMBY, they're still going ahead with it. It almost seems like it's a decent plan regardless of initial motive. There's private capital coming in regardless - the proposed Buddhist art museum, for example.

Said changes to commuting are happening now, as people switch to transit and walking. Facilitation of both requires the removal of the viaducts.

Talking about congestion costing Canada $455 million and worrying about a 3 day festival, yet one can't help but wonder how much Vancouver's DAILY congestion inducing policies cost the country? Im guessing a smidge more than a 3 day event. That neuters the economic potential of the city.

Again, Edmonton should never even be in a conversation to compare with Vancouver. Ever; in regards to anything (other than snow and cold). The fact that its even a discussion is a win for them, and a failure on our part.

Agreed. Perhaps the discussion has veered off the original topic and could be moved to another thread

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Talking about congestion costing Canada $455 million and worrying about a 3 day festival, yet one can't help but wonder how much Vancouver's DAILY congestion inducing policies cost the country? Im guessing a smidge more than a 3 day event. That neuters the economic potential of the city.

Again, Edmonton should never even be in a conversation to compare with Vancouver. Ever; in regards to anything (other than snow and cold). The fact that its even a discussion is a win for them, and a failure on our part.

Agreed. Perhaps the discussion has veered off the original topic and could be moved to another thread

Which policies? We're statistically not any more congested than other cities of our size and continent, it just feels that way. Toronto limiting King Street traffic, for example, seems to have actually improved the local economy.
And upon further research, it appears that most of the Indy's revenue was from tobacco ads, which the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act (then Bill C-71) mostly killed anyway. Doesn't look like Vancouver could stand on its own.

Edmonton isn't - you're the one that keeps bringing it up. If it shouldn't be in a conversation about Vancouver, then don't keep conversing about it!

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

We were competitive just fine in the 1950's, 60's 70's, 80's, even into the 90's. There was a time when we punched well above our weight for vibrancy in our civic core and were probably the second best in the country.

Those are some really rose-colored glasses you're using.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

A lot of "magic" at work to possibly support the lack of a need for 1960's incomplete infrastructure

The viaducts are not "incomplete". They serve well on their own. I wonder why people keep believing what the City spewed to justify spending half a billion to take them down prematurely.

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Talking about congestion costing Canada $455 million and worrying about a 3 day festival, yet one can't help but wonder how much Vancouver's DAILY congestion inducing policies cost the country? Im guessing a smidge more than a 3 day event. That neuters the economic potential of the city.

Again, Edmonton should never even be in a conversation to compare with Vancouver. Ever; in regards to anything (other than snow and cold). The fact that its even a discussion is a win for them, and a failure on our part.

Agreed. Perhaps the discussion has veered off the original topic and could be moved to another thread

Very much in agreement. It is amazing to see how people never think that the relative congestion-free streets of downtown is mostly due to all the road structures built from the 30s to the 70s. By slowly removing these, congestions are getting worse downtown, and it doesn't matter whether the number of private cars are decreasing over the years. Congestion is still congestion.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Which policies? We're statistically not any more congested than other cities of our size and continent, it just feels that way. Toronto limiting King Street traffic, for example, seems to have actually improved the local economy.
And upon further research, it appears that most of the Indy's revenue was from tobacco ads, which the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act (then Bill C-71) mostly killed anyway. Doesn't look like Vancouver could stand on its own.

Edmonton isn't - you're the one that keeps bringing it up. If it shouldn't be in a conversation about Vancouver, then don't keep conversing about it!

Take your pick regarding policy, but reducing lanes in and out of the core probably stands out the most.

Here's some more statistics that say its congested:
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-is-canada-s-worst-city-to-drive-in-study-claims-1.3609105

Regarding Indy revenues, you or anyone else outside the organization has any idea of their individual revenues are or where they came from. The event was staged by a corporation that did not release its detailed finances. The event in Toronto remains to this day so, there goes the theory that tobacco advertising had anything to do with the demise of the race. (it didn't)

I keep bringing it up because I stated that Edmonton has a better entertainment district around its major sports facility compared to the none existent one that we have/don't have. That is the point. Those words should never be uttered. But they are, because it is a fact. And that is a disgrace. Hiding from that fact, solves nothing

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Those are some really rose-colored glasses you're using.

By all means; explain.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

By all means; explain.

Please prove your statements about Vancouver "vibrancy" during the 50s-80s.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Take your pick regarding policy, but reducing lanes in and out of the core probably stands out the most.

Here's some more statistics that say its congested:
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-is-canada-s-worst-city-to-drive-in-study-claims-1.3609105

Regarding Indy revenues, you or anyone else outside the organization has any idea of their individual revenues are or where they came from. The event was staged by a corporation that did not release its detailed finances. The event in Toronto remains to this day so, there goes the theory that tobacco advertising had anything to do with the demise of the race. (it didn't)

I keep bringing it up because I stated that Edmonton has a better entertainment district around its major sports facility compared to the none existent one that we have/don't have. That is the point. Those words should never be uttered. But they are, because it is a fact. And that is a disgrace. Hiding from that fact, solves nothing

"While Vancouver was in the middle of the pack overall, the city came in 71st when it came to traffic congestion. Congestion level was calculated based on the TomTom Traffic Index, and delays caused by temporary construction work were not taken into account.

Calgary scored well in the congestion category, coming in fourth. Ottawa was 27th, Montreal 31st and Toronto 41st.

Vancouver's former manager of traffic and data management, Steve Brown, said the city's "poor" ranking can be attributed to how the measurements were chosen.

Brown, who now serves as rapid transit manager, said TomTom evaluates congestion by calculating the difference between free-flowing traffic times and peak period times."

[GenWhy?]

Also:

"Brown added that it should be noted Vancouver ranks highest in Canada for walkability (LINK), and that about half of trips in the city are taken by foot, bicycle or transit, not by private vehicle.

"Additionally, we have seen a 32 per cent decrease in distance driven per person since 2007," Brown said in a statement to CTV News."

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Take your pick regarding policy, but reducing lanes in and out of the core probably stands out the most.

Here's some more statistics that say its congested:
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-is-canada-s-worst-city-to-drive-in-study-claims-1.3609105

That study doesn't have any original research, it just regurgitates TomTom's congestion index. There are big problems with that index. It compares free-flowing and peak traffic time, so a city that's congested all the time actually looks to be performing better. Here's a different study that says Vancouver isn't particularly congested.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

That study doesn't have any original research, it just regurgitates TomTom's congestion index. There are big problems with that index. It compares free-flowing and peak traffic time, so a city that's congested all the time actually looks to be performing better. Here's a different study that says Vancouver isn't particularly congested.

Question is, over the years, is the Vancouver congestion level going up or down?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Question is, over the years, is the Vancouver congestion level going up or down?

Well, if the TomTom report was in any way reliable, it's improving. The other problem is that TomTom data is not for the city, which is what you seem concerned about, it's for Metro Vancouver. So things could be the same, or better in Vancouver, but worse in Burnaby and Surrey.

The City acknowledges traffic moves more slowly than it once did - even though vehicle counts are down. That's because there are way more traffic lights for pedestrians than there used to be because there are way more pedestrians (and bikes) than there used to be, so traffic goes slower. It's a measure of success, not failure.

Edit - the 2018 Inrix survey shows Vancouver improving with a 15% drop in congestion time compared to 2017.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

I keep bringing it up because I stated that Edmonton has a better entertainment district around its major sports facility compared to the none existent one that we have/don't have. That is the point. Those words should never be uttered. But they are, because it is a fact. And that is a disgrace. Hiding from that fact, solves nothing

Tear down the viaducts!!

There way more bars and restaurants in the immediate area of the Vancouver stadiums, compared to Edmonton. You can clearly see that on Google Earth. Parq Casino dwarfs Grand Villa Casino. Even in the Edmonton section they would recognize that Edmonton has a long way to go to catch up to Vancouver.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by logan5

Tear down the viaducts!!

There way more bars and restaurants in the immediate area of the Vancouver stadiums, compared to Edmonton. You can clearly see that on Google Earth. Parq Casino dwarfs Grand Villa Casino. Even in the Edmonton section they would recognize that Edmonton has a long way to go to catch up to Vancouver.

TBF, there really should be space for at least 1 or two big hotels built in the NEFC area, not just condos.

The view on top of the planned PavCo tower really would be incredible. Even the areas reserved for the 3rd and 4th Aquilini Towers (there may be space for a 5th if they still build one of the towers on top of the Skytrain viaduct).

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by logan5

Tear down the viaducts!!

There way more bars and restaurants in the immediate area of the Vancouver stadiums, compared to Edmonton. You can clearly see that on Google Earth. Parq Casino dwarfs Grand Villa Casino. Even in the Edmonton section they would recognize that Edmonton has a long way to go to catch up to Vancouver.

No there isn't. And Edmonton is adding attractions. Ours are pretty much built out and consist of condos.

Besides, its not even about bars and restaurants. They have open public spaces and other perfromance space, while we don't

Remember we have not one but 2 major sport facilities and yet we still don't measure up. For shame.