Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Migrant_Coconut]

All excellent points about how people will bitch about anything, but similar to the housing crisis, we are consistently one of the top five worst driving cities in North America, despite having the same population as Portland. I doubt that it's just a geography problem.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

All excellent points about how people will bitch about anything, but similar to the housing crisis, we are consistently one of the top five worst driving cities in North America, despite having the same population as Portland. I doubt that it's just a geography problem.

All of your links refer to the same TomTom source, including the paywalled link.

Not that it doesn't have some validity, but as with everything, take it with a grain of salt.

But TomTom’s methods have the exact same flaw that economist Joe Cortright has pointed out in the other reports: their measure of congestion looks only at car speeds, not at total travel time for people. In fact, compact cities with short commutes can actually get penalized in these rankings!

To explain how TomTom’s ranking can penalize cities with short commutes, let’s imagine two metropolises: Compact City, where car commuters don’t have to travel too far during their daily commute; and Sprawlville, which is more spread out. In Compact City, congestion boosts the average commute from 20 minutes to 25 minutes—a five minute delay, adding up to a 25 percent congestion “penalty”. In Sprawlville, a typical 30 minute commute is lengthened to 35 minutes by congestion—also a five minute delay, but a congestion penalty of only 17 percent.

Both cities have the exact same congestion delay, and residents of Compact City actually spend less time behind the wheel during rush hour. Even so, TomTom’s methods (just like those of INRIX and TTI) would rank Sprawlville as having far less “congestion” than Compact City.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

All of your links refer to the same TomTom source, including the paywalled link.

Whoops - I'm not seeing any paywall on any of them, but point taken. Here's one from Inrix (though that's apparently got the same errors as the TomTom one), and the CAA. Pretty "impressive" for a city of only 2.5 million.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Whoops - I'm not seeing any paywall on any of them, but point taken. Here's one from Inrix (though that's apparently got the same errors as the TomTom one), and the CAA. Pretty "impressive" for a city of only 2.5 million.

these new links also are confusing. your inrix link is indirect and the direct results have vancouver as 5th worst in canada after montreal, TO and St. John's (?). The CAA study looked primarily at limited-access highway bottlenecks, and for some reason, included signalized non-highway bottlenecks in vancouver of which a few of them made it into the top 10 in canada. again, i would like to think we can learn from this, but i am still unsure why people generalize vancouver as being the worst in canada/among the world.

As already noted, this Study focused on expressways. Unlike Toronto and Montreal, Vancouver does not have any expressways directly serving its downtown area. As such, we choose to include the signalized portion of Highway 99 that runs through downtown Vancouver.

As noted, we selected the main artery that serves Vancouver’s downtown core in order to make the results broadly comparable to Canada’s other large
cities, despite the fact that it is signalized.

odd that they used hwy 99 and not hwy 1 as the comparison though..

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

these new links also are confusing. your inrix link is indirect and the direct results have vancouver as 5th worst in canada after montreal, TO and St. John's (?).

Thanks - there's the direct link. Faster commute than Orlando? Wow, okay, I stand corrected.

[Vin]

Hey guys, we are talking about the viaducts here. Focus! It may be pleasant to drive elsewhere in the Lower Mainland, but that doesn't mean it would be a cruise through the neighbourhood once the viaducts come down. Fact is that CoV is trying to make the congestion index go up instead of bringing it down, and there's no dispute about it. Why? Simple: there isn't a better replacement of the viaducts.

[khalil1011]

Many people dont know that the viaducts we're meant to stand freeway or no freeway.

"Although the viaduct was meant to be a self-sufficient component of the city’s
transportation infrastructure and one that did not require freeways to function effectively, the
engineers made their belief in the necessity of freeways clear. Downtown traffic volumes were
such, they added, that freeways were essential. They conceded the viaduct could function
without freeways but maintained, “The provision of the new viaduct will not by itself
significantly improve the environment."

[WarrenC12]

Sure the traffic engineers' vision of the future from 1950 is still valid and should be respected, right? Right?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

Hey guys, we are talking about the viaducts here. Focus! We may be pleassant to drive elsewhere in the Lower Mainland, but that doesn't mean it would be a cruise through the neighbourhood once the viaducts come down. Fact is that CoV is trying to make the congestion index go up instead of bringing it down, and there's no dispute about it. Why? Simple: there isn't a better replacement of the viaducts.

I still refer back to the Hyde Park Underpass idea. If the blvd is wide enough, is there not room for consideration of a tunnel to take through-traffic, not turning
on Georgia, or aroud the stadium? People usually (with reason)pffft-reject the tunnel idea as too expensive, but one going under said routes, coming up bore Burrard, Might help out.
I said might. § If anyone would be interested in taking this up I'd be really pleased. I still think a tunnel element maybe key to keeping the area traffic fluid.
IF they pull down the Viaducts .... (and they will, in time) ......

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Sure the traffic engineers' vision of the future from 1950 is still valid and should be respected, right? Right?

Truth be told, many from that era had better visions of the future. The best of Vancouver were built then, or even before.

Drug culture of the 60s brought this to a halt.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Vin

Truth be told, many from that era had better visions of the future. The best of Vancouver were built then, or even before.

Drug culture of the 60s brought this to a halt.

That era was truly the golden age of this city. We were dynamic, unafraid to be bold, punched well beyond our weight in so many categories but sadly that is long gone now.

If current administration was around then, Vancouver would have a population of about 400,000 and would be Halifax west; a nice place to visit and perhaps retire, but not much else.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

We were dynamic, unafraid to be bold, punched well beyond our weight in so many categories but sadly that is long gone now.

You seem to be living in a different Vancouver than I am...

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

You seem to be living in a different Vancouver than I am...

Apparently. Mine tries to slow everything down rather than speed it up. Mine puts ideology ahead of practicality. Mine puts out propaganda pieces that would make Joesph Goebbells proud. Mine likes tearing down perfectly good infrastructure in order to satisfy their residential developer overlords in a seemingly endless cycle of creed.

How about yours?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

That era was truly the golden age of this city. We were dynamic, unafraid to be bold, punched well beyond our weight in so many categories but sadly that is long gone now.

If current administration was around then, Vancouver would have a population of about 400,000 and would be Halifax west; a nice place to visit and perhaps retire, but not much else.

I think you're wearing some pretty deep rose colored glasses looking at the past.

Also I'm not sure how the current administration can be both limiting the population of Vancouver, and bowing down to developers building endless residential development. We get it, you don't like bikes.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I think you're wearing some pretty deep rose colored glasses looking at the past.

Also I'm not sure how the current administration can be both limiting the population of Vancouver, and bowing down to developers building endless residential development. We get it, you don't like bikes.

Your combining posts and different ideas together. One is what they currently do (i.e. slaves to residential developer overlords) One is what would have happened (i.e. little population growth, only a tourist area) if they were around back then.

On a side note; Please point out where I said I don't like bikes (or even mention bikes for that matter).

Jump to conclusions much?

[officedweller]

Cool,

I've never seen that rendering before with the cross-over version of the viaducts.
That would have had Dunsmuir carry eastbound traffic.

Originally Posted by khalil1011

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Your combining posts and different ideas together. One is what they currently do (i.e. slaves to residential developer overlords) One is what would have happened (i.e. little population growth, only a tourist area) if they were around back then.

On a side note; Please point out where I said I don't like bikes (or even mention bikes for that matter).

Jump to conclusions much?

How can you claim those 2 points other than just being complete anti-Vision, assuming they would just "be the worst" without anything to back it up.

The bikes thing was a joke... your hatred for anything Vision is blinding you. Please remind me how the NPA was different.

[jsbertram]

VanCourier had an article recently speculating that vision is gone in Nov/18 elections
http://www.vancourier.com/opinion/ha...ate-1.23074784

robertson and others may not run again, and may be waiting to run provincially / nationally. megg jumped to victoria, and vision lost his council seat in the by-election (placing 5th)

if vision is delayed in approving demolition this year (possibly they dont have the votes, or majority), the next bunch may cancel this project

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

How can you claim those 2 points other than just being complete anti-Vision, assuming they would just "be the worst" without anything to back it up.

The bikes thing was a joke... your hatred for anything Vision is blinding you. Please remind me how the NPA was different.

Once again, you are making things up. Never mentioned any specific party by name. And just so you know, there's a lot more to the "administration" of a city than any one particular party . Each has brought its own brand of lunacy to the table over the years. So the only thing "blinding" here is your ability to comprehend and speak to what someone is actually saying.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

You seem to be living in a different Vancouver than I am...

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Apparently. Mine tries to slow everything down rather than speed it up. Mine puts ideology ahead of practicality. Mine puts out propaganda pieces that would make Joesph Goebbells proud. Mine likes tearing down perfectly good infrastructure in order to satisfy their residential developer overlords in a seemingly endless cycle of creed.

How about yours?

15 Reasons why Vancouver is the greatest city on Earth

Mercer Quality of Living Survey

https://www.nestpick.com/millennial-...Cities Ranking

I will note that (a) these are all independent surveys, not local boosterism, and (b) they all rate Vancouver highly despite its traffic issues. Apparently for many people, myself included, whatever Vancouver is doing seems to producing generally desirable results.

I will also note that the style and mechanisms of development in Vancouver are often cited as a model for other cities to follow.

Nothing's perfect, of course, and I completely understand the necessity of criticism in order to spur improvement. But people who don't stop and smell the roses every once in a while just end up leading a depressing life.