Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Regardless, the suburbs aren't going anywhere. We'll all die of global warming before people give up their houses in the burbs. And let's be honest, the biggest issue is planetary over population. There should be a good 2-3 billion less humans on this planet.

This planet can easily sustain 20-40 billion inhabitants with resources and room to spare. It's human mismanagement of said resources and food that have caused most of the problems today. If you've ever grown food in a community garden you start to see how much food the earth actually produces.

Take a look at the Food studies the UN has done in past years. I dug into them once and it stated that we CURRENTLY produce enough grains to give every man, woman, and child on the planet 2500 calories per day. And that's JUST GRAINS. When you add in fruits & vegetables and other edible plants, we produce more than enough for our current population.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

This planet can easily sustain 20-40 billion inhabitants with resources and room to spare. It's human mismanagement of said resources and food that have caused most of the problems today. If you've ever grown food in a community garden you start to see how much food the earth actually produces.

Take a look at the Food studies the UN has done in past years. I dug into them once and it stated that we CURRENTLY produce enough grains to give every man, woman, and child on the planet 2500 calories per day. And that's JUST GRAINS. When you add in fruits & vegetables and other edible plants, we produce more than enough for our current population.

This. Overpopulation is a myth, it's just an easy excuse to not take responsibility for the problems that humankind has today. Properly managed, the world can support a population much higher than already exists, and either way experts believe we will top out our population at around 12 billion. The Earth can support that, but we need to better manage our resources and behaviour in order to make it truly sustainable and that includes making good transportation choices.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

This planet can easily sustain 20-40 billion inhabitants with resources and room to spare. It's human mismanagement of said resources and food that have caused most of the problems today. If you've ever grown food in a community garden you start to see how much food the earth actually produces.

I think that as a society we are starting to realize that managing the waste we produce is at least as big a problem as producing enough food to eat. Particularly the waste from burning hydrocarbons.

[SFUVancouver]

^ Agreed. A mind-blowing volume of produce can be grown per hectare when intensive permaculture and organic farming techniques are used. Not only do such approaches take better care of the soil, but they can greatly reduce the inputs of fertilizer and largely eliminate weed and pest control agents. The flip side is that they are far more labour intensive than mechanized farming and are not well suited to commercial mono-culture crops. This isn't such a bad trade when there is a surplus of labour and the intention is to grow food crops for local consumption.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Sure they are. They are examples of major freeways that were replaced where the kind of "carmeggedon" touted in the linked article failed to materialize.

The carmeggedon touted failed to materialize only because some of them found better solutions, like digging a tunnel, or have almost no population growth, etc. Others, like Seoul, is still facing extreme carmeggedon daily, although they also have a first world transportation system. This is not a one-size-fits-all kind of argument.

Last time I took the skytrain out to Metrotown during rush hour, it was stifling hot and congested, and definitely not comfortable at all. Driving on any of the roads coming from the east other than the viaducts is also more stressful, with more crossroads, dashing pedestrians, congestions etc. What is the City's solution to handle the traffic better after the viaducts are gone? These issues have to be tackled before they can even think about removing such important roadways.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by WBC

Yes, that it the root cause of majority of our problems. Yes, we need to address our energy use and improve efficiency but that hardly helps if we (as a species) keep adding people endlessly. The problem is that our most prosperous states/societies run under capitalism and capitalism requires growth (among other things). Once you cut off population growth and start actually reducing the number of people you would have some tough problems to solve in terms of how the economy would function. For example, look at our country and our cities. A significant chunk of economy (something like 20%) is tied to real estate industry, construction and financials linked with it. Can you imagine the scenario in which you have population decline and as a result real estate and construction are basically dead? This would be a fascinating topic to explore...

The reality is that capitalism's assumed "prosperity" is heavily debt based and unsustainable given the tendency for the systemic precipitation of growing income inequality within the context of ongoing inflation based on Time Value of Money principle!

[204]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

This. Overpopulation is a myth, it's just an easy excuse to not take responsibility for the problems that humankind has today. Properly managed, the world can support a population much higher than already exists, and either way experts believe we will top out our population at around 12 billion. The Earth can support that, but we need to better manage our resources and behaviour in order to make it truly sustainable and that includes making good transportation choices.

It can support it if you do away with private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership, individual travel choices and privately owned farms. This is all being attempted now under the banner of “sustainable development” and Smart Growth.

[WBC]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

This. Overpopulation is a myth, it's just an easy excuse to not take responsibility for the problems that humankind has today. Properly managed, the world can support a population much higher than already exists, and either way experts believe we will top out our population at around 12 billion. The Earth can support that, but we need to better manage our resources and behaviour in order to make it truly sustainable and that includes making good transportation choices.

Well we could pack 20-30 billion people if we treat them as we treat chickens today. But what is the point of that? Why would we collectively choose to have such lives?

Now I am not some dude living on 100 acres of farmland. I do not even live in a house. I live in the condo, but I would not want density to go beyond certain point. I just don't see the point of cramming people for the sake of doing it, when we could make certain choices as a species to curb our population and then de-populate certain parts of the world where we should really not be living.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Vin

What is the City's solution to handle the traffic better after the viaducts are gone? These issues have to be tackled before they can even think about removing such important roadways.

The City has a plan that they believe will be adequate. You may disagree, but past experience with similar project (Dunsmuir, Burrard Bridge, Cornwall, etc.) suggests that their predictions fare better than most (Golden Ears and Port Mann bridges, anyone)?

I've heard "wolf" cried so many times by motorists around here that I've lost count. I'm a motorist too, and I'm not a huge proponent of viaduct removal either. But I certainly don't think it's going to be the end of the world.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

He's ignoring similar projects in many other cities which have been generally regarded as successes.

Actually no he's not. Once again, those projects listed (at least the North american ones) were in different category of usage than our viaducts are.You can't paint the subject with such a broad brush. For example, the freeway in San Francisco was a a bypass through the downtown core. The viaducts do not serve a similar purpose (not even close actually). the Milwaukee example is laughable since that road was replaced by several new highways. For the more local example; Seattle is burying the road, not eliminating it all together like they are here. BIG difference.

And "generally regarded as successes" by whom exactly? Some woman on a blog?

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The City has a plan that they believe will be adequate. You may disagree, but past experience with similar project (Dunsmuir, Burrard Bridge, Cornwall, etc.) suggests that their predictions fare better than most (Golden Ears and Port Mann bridges, anyone)?

Just how did their predictions fare better than most? Golden Ears, Port Mann provided actual figures while the City of Vancouver provided questionable metrics open-ended catchphrases like "people just got used to it" (in regards to major road changes on the Burrard Bridge), "only 3 minutes longer per average commute" (Burrard Bridge again), again while providing questionable "evidence" (or in some cases no evidence at all). Cornwall street was an attempted snowjob where they again tried the old "people seem to be getting used to the changes" card.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Just how did their predictions fare better than most? Golden Ears, Port Mann provided actual figures while the City of Vancouver provided questionable metrics open-ended catchphrases like "people just got used to it" (in regards to major road changes on the Burrard Bridge), "only 3 minutes longer per average commute" (Burrard Bridge again), again while providing questionable "evidence" (or in some cases no evidence at all). Cornwall street was an attempted snowjob where they again tried the old "people seem to be getting used to the changes" card.

All the while suiting the city's agenda of which I dont trust. Its manipulation at its finest

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Just how did their predictions fare better than most? Golden Ears, Port Mann provided actual figures...

...which proved to be so optimistic as to throw the financial plan into question.

... while the City of Vancouver provided questionable metrics open-ended catchphrases like "people just got used to it" (in regards to major road changes on the Burrard Bridge), "only 3 minutes longer per average commute" (Burrard Bridge again), again while providing questionable "evidence" (or in some cases no evidence at all). Cornwall street was an attempted snowjob where they again tried the old "people seem to be getting used to the changes" card.

It certainly looks to me as though the City's predictions came far closer to reality than the doomsayers' did.

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

...which proved to be so optimistic as to throw the financial plan into question.It certainly looks to me as though the City's predictions came far closer to reality than the doomsayers' did.

Exactly.

EastVanMarK where is your proof that these things didn't work? People do get used to it. There haven't been massive traffic jams and gridlock resulting from any of these projects.

Your statement that these other projects in North america are different than the viaducts is certainly correct. The viaducts aren't connected to anything! You average 30 km /hour at one end. You go 80 km/hour for 45 seconds. Then you average 30 km/hour again. The level of commitment to the idea that this will be doomsday is beyond me.

Edit: Ref to North America

[IanS]

The level of commitment to the idea that this will be doomsday is beyond me.

I'm not sure what "doomsday" has to do with anything. One might just as well decry the level of commitment to the idea that the removal of the viaducts will save the world or cure cancer. Apart from miscasting other people's arguments for the purpose of belittlement, it adds nothing to the discussion.

For my part, I oppose the removal of the viaducts because we will be spending a great deal of money to remove working infrastructure for no good purpose. Yes, it will make some developers a lot of money, but my view is that it will make traffic in the area significantly worse. Is it the end of the world? Or doomsday? Of course not.

But that doesn't make it a good idea.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Just how did their predictions fare better than most? Golden Ears, Port Mann provided actual figures

For the record, here are the actual figures for the Port Mann traffic level predictions:


[Source: Gordon Price]

So yes, you're right in that actual figures were provided for Port Mann traffic predictions, but those predictions were way off.

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by IanS

I'm not sure what "doomsday" has to do with anything. One might just as well decry the level of commitment to the idea that the removal of the viaducts will save the world or cure cancer. Apart from miscasting other people's arguments for the purpose of belittlement, it adds nothing to the discussion.

For my part, I oppose the removal of the viaducts because we will be spending a great deal of money to remove working infrastructure for no good purpose. Yes, it will make some developers a lot of money, but my view is that it will make traffic in the area significantly worse. Is it the end of the world? Or doomsday? Of course not.

But that doesn't make it a good idea.

Of course I'm the first person to use hyperbole in this discussion.

With regard to the rest of your point, I agree the cost is concerning. If anything, this is the piece that gives me the most pause about this proposal. If it actually comes in at $130 mil I will be shocked.

We can agree to disagree on the potential traffic impacts.

[WarrenC12]

I think everyone needs to come to grips with the fact that this is going to happen, albeit over the medium term, with the entire project being complete by 2020.

I too await the financial picture, including the potential increased revenue by taxation and how the Skytrain will fit into the new developments in the area.

Arguing over the reality of future commuting times is pointless. Traffic will adapt, TomTom will no doubt continue their flawed studies, and life will continue.

[WBC]

I find it a bit perplexing that urbanists around here use this Reverse Carmageddon TM argument to justify things. The argument goes something like this - The worst possible thing that we could imagine happening did not occur so we were justified in doing our thing (medical profession loves this type of argument too).

Now to the credit of CoV engineers it seems based on the data that Burrard Bridge bike lanes did not make commute worse on average (some trips take a bit longer, some less). I hope they are correct on Viaducts too. The decision about viaducts is much more complex then taking a single lane of traffic on any single street. It is also much more costly which I think is why it has taken 5 years to get to this point. It is also an opportunity to resolve bunch of traffic issues on Prior, Terminal and in general decide the future of False Creek flats.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

Of course I'm the first person to use hyperbole in this discussion.

Far from it. We've seen lots of hyperbole from both sides. I just thought it bore mentioning.

With regard to the rest of your point, I agree the cost is concerning. If anything, this is the piece that gives me the most pause about this proposal. If it actually comes in at $130 mil I will be shocked.

I agree that it will likely cost much more than the current estimate. IMO, the cost far outweighs the benefits. Unless you're one of the developers in the area.

We can agree to disagree on the potential traffic impacts.

Fair enough. I guess we'll see soon enough.