Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Maybe its just my IT background and working from home majority of my days but I don't think the future supports dense over populated cities. I believe they will start becoming increasingly inefficient and people will once again begin to spread out as there end up being less jobs, and more virtual jobs, and improved mobility in the forms of shared, driver-less, networked vehicles operating on more efficient grids in a environment where peak times are less defined due to my first points. Downtown's will once again age, and become un economical to invest in, rebuilt or maintain, nor will they be pleasant to live in.

Humanity has been urbanizing since the rise of organized agriculture.

The concept of the suburbs arose primarily in post-war North America, and parts of Europe. Other countries around the world emulated this development on the ideal of the US white picket fence, 2.5 kids, etc.

Now we are moving back towards urbanization as a society. To me, it's clear that is the long run trend, and the 20th century was more of an anomaly than a trend.

All that said, I don't think suburban lifestyles are affordable from a sustainability perspective. Humans are social animals and tend to enjoy being in groups, both family and otherwise.

Edit: Just to add on, I share an IT background and have done extensive working from home in the past. I much preferred working in my downtown condo and/or a local coffee shop, vs. in my isolated residential basement or office.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

On the relatively rare occasions that I do drive downtown, I most often access it via the Dunsmuir viaduct. And by gosh I'm usually able to drive along Dunsmuir from Beatty to Burrard with only one stop light. It takes about 3 minutes, and it's about the same amount of distance as the viaducts are. And leaving town via Georgia eastbound is a very similar experience.

Don't discount the power of the "green wave" to expedite traffic.

That's only possible because currently there are quite a few choices for vehicular traffic coming in from the the eastern side, thus dispersing the vehicles, making the streets look emptier. Furthermore, as you mentioned, that situation only happens on "rare occasions", especially late in the evenings or quiet weekends. Traffic jams due to bottlenecks always happen on Burrard, Seymour and West Georgia on most times of the day as traffic all over is channeled onto those few streets; same situation after the viaducts are removed: Pacific Boulevard would be backed-up for sure.

Also, it's not ideal to introduce a green wave through all traffic lights in a primarily residential zone where many people and cars tend to cross the streets. If you do, it essentially defeats the purpose of linking neighbourhoods (one of the excuses used to bring down the viaducts). If that's the case, it'd be much better to have the viaducts where traffic is efficiently moved overhead, leaving the lower streets to lesser and slower traffic.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Vin

Traffic jams due to bottlenecks always happen on Burrard, Seymour and West Georgia on most times of the day as traffic all over is channeled onto those few streets; same situation after the viaducts are removed: Pacific Boulevard would be backed-up for sure.

Absolutely, but in those situations today the backups extend right onto the viaducts and so they're not providing any particular advantage over surface streets anyway.

Originally Posted by Vin

Also, it's not ideal to introduce a green wave through all traffic lights in a primarily residential zone where many people and cars tend to cross the streets. If you do, it essentially defeats the purpose of linking neighbourhoods (one of the excuses used to bring down the viaducts).

The "green wave" doesn't reduce the ability for people or other traffic to get across the street, it simply changes when they do it.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The "green wave" doesn't reduce the ability for people or other traffic to get across the street, it simply changes when they do it.

Yes, but for it to be effective and to prevent back-up, the main through traffic has to be given more precedence, meaning there is less time for pedestrian crossings, etc. That serves to cut off neighbourhoods, especially on wide "super roads". Have you seen the streets in Mississauga's city centre?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Vin

Yes, but for it to be effective and to prevent back-up, the main through traffic has to be given more precedence, meaning there is less time for pedestrian crossings, etc.

That's always been true for the major thoroughfares, the new one won't be any different. The engineers aren't going create such short signal timings as to make people have to run across the streets at a mad dash.

Originally Posted by Vin

Have you seen the streets in Mississauga's city centre?

Mississauga's problem isn't that the streets are wide or that the signal timings are poor. Their real problem is that the city is designed around cars instead of people. Those streets you're talking about run through enclaves where all the houses and businesses are facing away from the street. Their streets are pedestrian-hostile places where there's pretty much zero motivation for anyone other than a motorist to venture.

Compare those lifeless Mississauga streets with all the people walking, cycling and driving along Pacific Boulevard through Yaletown. Both are similar sizes and carry similar amounts of vehicular traffic, but they're worlds apart in their walkability.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Humanity has been urbanizing since the rise of organized agriculture.

The concept of the suburbs arose primarily in post-war North America, and parts of Europe. Other countries around the world emulated this development on the ideal of the US white picket fence, 2.5 kids, etc.

Now we are moving back towards urbanization as a society. To me, it's clear that is the long run trend, and the 20th century was more of an anomaly than a trend.

All that said, I don't think suburban lifestyles are affordable from a sustainability perspective. Humans are social animals and tend to enjoy being in groups, both family and otherwise.

Edit: Just to add on, I share an IT background and have done extensive working from home in the past. I much preferred working in my downtown condo and/or a local coffee shop, vs. in my isolated residential basement or office.

We have been urbanizing because we have had exploding population growth along with poor mobility (virtual and physical) and old fashioned jobs requiring manual on site labor. All these things are changing.

Also Europe is fairly suburban, and most of the first world outside of countries taking in vast amounts of immigrants are absolutely stable in the urban / rural ratio and generally much less urban then Canada for example. And based on my experience in Europe for example are starting to spread out as the percentage of virtual jobs and greater mobility increases. I cant think of a reason for cities to be densely packed and urban with less jobs, more virtual jobs and stagnating population growth. I just don't see it. I do however see many reasons why not to have dense over populated cities (not saying we wont have cities, just that the pressure will be reversed and people will increasingly spread out and move to smaller towns cities, while large cores will suffer.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by cornholio

We have been urbanizing because we have had exploding population growth along with poor mobility (virtual and physical) and old fashioned jobs requiring manual on site labor. All these things are changing.

Also Europe is fairly suburban, and most of the first world outside of countries taking in vast amounts of immigrants are absolutely stable in the urban / rural ratio and generally much less urban then Canada for example. And based on my experience in Europe for example are starting to spread out as the percentage of virtual jobs and greater mobility increases. I cant think of a reason for cities to be densely packed and urban with less jobs, more virtual jobs and stagnating population growth. I just don't see it. I do however see many reasons why not to have dense over populated cities (not saying we wont have cities, just that the pressure will be reversed and people will increasingly spread out and move to smaller towns cities, while large cores will suffer.

That sounds a bit like an American scenario, where the downtown empties at night pretty much,and the middle class and up-office workers return home to their homes in Delta, Burnaby, Coquitlam, wherever.
Is there a way to mitigate that?
And is there infrastructure to be built for transit and roads,and if so, how and what and where? Citing examples would be good if you could find a link.

[urbancanadian]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

That sounds a bit like an American scenario, where the downtown empties at night pretty much,and the middle class and up-office workers return home to their homes in Delta, Burnaby, Coquitlam, wherever.
Is there a way to mitigate that?
And is there infrastructure to be built for transit and roads,and if so, how and what and where? Citing examples would be good if you could find a link.

I think the free markets will mitigate that, in the long run. The more spread out everything is, the higher the cost per person for all the necessary infrastructure. For example, a subdivision with a couple dozen homes per block costs way more per person/home than a block with a couple hundred homes. The amount of roadway, sidewalks, greenery, sewer & water pipes, electricity lines, etc. is similar per block, but since the urban block has more people living there, the cost per utility/etc is spread out over more people. Another example - the cost of picking up garbage, recycling, and compost is much higher when the truck needs to stop at each individual house versus a multi-family development with a couple bins for the entire complex.

Here is a comparison from the Halifax Regional Municipality:



http://thecostofsprawl.com/

The cost of building infrastructure in the suburbs is cheaper at first, partly because the developers pay for a lot of it and there was nothing existing previously. But when it comes time for replacing the sewers, maintaining the boulevards, and resurfacing the roads - that's when the costs (and the taxes) really start to climb.

That time hasn't come yet for most American suburbs. It will be interesting to see how they deal with it when it does, especially with wages being stagnant for so long. Will the municipalities be able to afford all the repairs? Will the eventual tax increases be too much for residents to bear?

Anyway that's my take on just a small part of it...

[city-dweller]

I heard the SFU City Conversations that meets downtown at lunch times is getting an early peek into the report today at lunch time. Anyone going? Someone please go!

Details here

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by city-dweller

I heard the SFU City Conversations that meets downtown at lunch times is getting an early peek into the report today at lunch time. Anyone going? Someone please go!

Details here

This was yesterday. It would be interesting to hear if anyone made it out.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by csbvan

This was yesterday. It would be interesting to hear if anyone made it out.

If you check the "city conversation" twitter feed, there's a bunch of sound bytes from presentation, FWIW.

This one, at least, was good news for me personally:

Timeline pending approval: consultation+planning to 2018. Removal+construction finished by 2020 @cityofvancouver #CityConv @HollySovdi

[Klazu]

I find it interesting how the plan calls for a "super road" to be built, yet they have steadily been reducing lanes on both Expo and Pacific Boulevards. Both are nowadays effectively only 2 lanes anymore.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

I think the free markets will mitigate that, in the long run. The more spread out everything is, the higher the cost per person for all the necessary infrastructure. For example, a subdivision with a couple dozen homes per block costs way more per person/home than a block with a couple hundred homes. The amount of roadway, sidewalks, greenery, sewer & water pipes, electricity lines, etc. is similar per block, but since the urban block has more people living there, the cost per utility/etc is spread out over more people. Another example - the cost of picking up garbage, recycling, and compost is much higher when the truck needs to stop at each individual house versus a multi-family development with a couple bins for the entire complex.

Here is a comparison from the Halifax Regional Municipality:



http://thecostofsprawl.com/

The cost of building infrastructure in the suburbs is cheaper at first, partly because the developers pay for a lot of it and there was nothing existing previously. But when it comes time for replacing the sewers, maintaining the boulevards, and resurfacing the roads - that's when the costs (and the taxes) really start to climb.

That time hasn't come yet for most American suburbs. It will be interesting to see how they deal with it when it does, especially with wages being stagnant for so long. Will the municipalities be able to afford all the repairs? Will the eventual tax increases be too much for residents to bear?

Anyway that's my take on just a small part of it...

........the Achilles Heel of capitalism that few people want to discuss (re: growing income inequality and attendant debt within the wider context of inflation based on the Time Value of money Principle)!

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I find it interesting how the plan calls for a "super road" to be built, yet they have steadily been reducing lanes on both Expo and Pacific Boulevards. Both are nowadays effectively only 2 lanes anymore.

So if they just add 1 lane and remove the barriers on the lanes now we'll be up to 4 lanes each way = super road.

I agree though, with all of the construction around Rogers Arena, it has been down to 2 lanes for a long time. The flip side is, traffic is still fine.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So if they just add 1 lane and remove the barriers on the lanes now we'll be up to 4 lanes each way = super road.

I agree though, with all of the construction around Rogers Arena, it has been down to 2 lanes for a long time. The flip side is, traffic is still fine.

At least Expo cannot be 3 lanes anymore on the eastern end without completely reworking it due to the new bikelane there.

Yeah, traffic on both seem to be just fine so it makes you wonder. If 2+2 lanes is fine for these roads and viaducts are "unnecessary", who do they think anything more than 3+3 is needed?

I hope the Expo section under BC Place will be back to 3 lanes in the future. That is the most urban section of road we have in Downtown.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

........the Achilles Heel of capitalism that few people want to discuss (re: growing income inequality and attendant debt within the wider context of inflation based on the Time Value of money Principle)!

This sounds like something you would read in a university text book. Care to expand on this in a way that the mainstream such as myself can understand?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So if they just add 1 lane and remove the barriers on the lanes now we'll be up to 4 lanes each way = super road.

I agree though, with all of the construction around Rogers Arena, it has been down to 2 lanes for a long time. The flip side is, traffic is still fine.

Except when it's not. In my experience, it's often jammed back along Pacific due to construction. And, of course, that's with the viaducts in place.

[nefc]

BIV article for the pro-viaduct crowd: https://www.biv.com/article/2015/8/r...tion-question/

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by IanS

Except when it's not. In my experience, it's often jammed back along Pacific due to construction. And, of course, that's with the viaducts in place.

Depends on the direction and time of day. I often drive those stretches during rush hour, and it's fine.

The two main problems I see are:

Lights at Quebec and Expo - waaaaay too long. I sit at a red light while 1-2 cars or bikes go by, then 30 seconds of nothing.

Events at Rogers Arena - not too much can be done about this, just avoid the area.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Depends on the direction and time of day. I often drive those stretches during rush hour, and it's fine.

Great! The viaducts are doing their job just fine and dandy.