Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Agreed. Though the 23 can easily be upgraded to a regular bus route and sent down Prior, even without four lanes - it's just going to take forever when it does.



That discussion is in the St Paul's thread. IIRC, there were three good points: that many of the ER's patients come from the DTES (which is now closer), that downtown traffic is best avoided, and that the brick building will be kept as a small hospital to handle downtown patients, while the giant annexes get redeveloped.

Well, 23 is anchored by the Main St. Skytrain Station.

downtown traffic is best avoided

Obviously removing the Viaducts is going to help with that.
This wouldn't even be as much of a problem if they had put dedicated bus lanes on the new Pacific/Expo Blvd. Maybe even turn Expo into a HOV/Bus route, as it's almost useless under the current plan.

But no- the City needs to squeeze as much $$$ out of this baby as it can. There's just no space for new lanes!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Well, 23 is anchored by the Main St. Skytrain Station.

Sir, SkyTrain or not, you don't want a regular bus line looping around the Quebec-Main-Terminal area.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Obviously removing the Viaducts is going to help with that.

Heh. Well, keeping them doesn't help much either - soon as you dismount, you're in heavy traffic.

It's not ideal, sure, but streets like Broadway have functioned fine without bus/HOV lanes. I'd focus my outrage on all the pedestrian crossings instead; people here step out against the light into oncoming traffic, all the damn time.

[Feathered Friend]

For those interested, during the False Creek Arterial Debate Councillor Dominato (NPA) mentioned in passing a timeline of "the viaducts coming down in a few years." It doesn't seem this plan is anywhere near as contentious on council as it is on this thread.

Roughly at the 4:10:40 mark of this video:
https://csg001-harmony.sliq.net/0031...330&viewMode=3

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'd focus my outrage on all the pedestrian crossings instead; people here step out against the light into oncoming traffic, all the damn time.

You can't blame pedestrians for being as (genuinely) stupid as they are. It will come back to haunt you when the election comes around. This is why there's a strip of Hastings restricted to 30km/h.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sir, SkyTrain or not, you don't want a regular bus line looping around the Quebec-Main-Terminal area.



Heh. Well, keeping them doesn't help much either - soon as you dismount, you're in heavy traffic.

It's not ideal, sure, but streets like Broadway have functioned fine without bus/HOV lanes. I'd focus my outrage on all the pedestrian crossings instead; people here step out against the light into oncoming traffic, all the damn time.

LOL: http://www.transitdb.ca/route/023/
Hey, I'm not the one designing these routes.

Translink can't add any more buses to Broadway without slowing the buses down even further from bus congestion. Hence, the subway.

If Translink was designing the 99B today, I would imagine there'd be a 50-50 chance of there being full HOV lanes- the only B-line that's being designed now without full Bus Priority/HOV Lanes is Marine Drive (b/c NIMBYs).

The viaducts divert traffic off Pacific/Expo/Hastings. Ambulances can't use the viaducts anyways.

They really should add ped crossings across Pacific/Expo, regardless of if the viaducts come down.

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

For those interested, during the False Creek Arterial Debate Councillor Dominato (NPA) mentioned in passing a timeline of "the viaducts coming down in a few years." It doesn't seem this plan is anywhere near as contentious on council as it is on this thread.

Roughly at the 4:10:40 mark of this video:
https://csg001-harmony.sliq.net/0031...330&viewMode=3

Well, yeah, it was never that controversial in council. Plus, most of the people who actually care live in the suburbs or in industry.

They mention a 'Station Street connector' immediately after though- I think that's what I heard. What's that?

Originally Posted by MIPS

You can't blame pedestrians for being as (genuinely) stupid as they are. It will come back to haunt you when the election comes around. This is why there's a strip of Hastings restricted to 30km/h.

Are you sure that's not just to avoid hitting the druggies?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Yeah, pretty sure it's for the junkies.

Originally Posted by fredinno

LOL: http://www.transitdb.ca/route/023/
Hey, I'm not the one designing these routes.

Translink can't add any more buses to Broadway without slowing the buses down even further from bus congestion. Hence, the subway.

If Translink was designing the 99B today, I would imagine there'd be a 50-50 chance of there being full HOV lanes- the only B-line that's being designed now without full Bus Priority/HOV Lanes is Marine Drive (b/c NIMBYs).

The viaducts divert traffic off Pacific/Expo/Hastings. Ambulances can't use the viaducts anyways.

They really should add ped crossings across Pacific/Expo, regardless of if the viaducts come down.

Dude, "regular bus line." Right now, the 23 is a community shuttle, with the 6 doing most of the work; 40-footers won't be a good fit for the route or the road grid.

Pacific (old or new) is nowhere near maximum car or bus saturation. A two-lane Prior accelerates that saturation, yes, but current levels of traffic should still be manageable; by the time they aren't, the viaducts/Pacific combo would likely be backed up too. And the Hastings SkyTrain should be running by then - which is where much of the traffic's coming from - so commuter flow shouldn't be a massive problem.

They should, but why at-grade? Overpasses and underpasses allow freer flow for both vehicles and pedestrians. Part of the city planning team is obsessed with having "street interaction" like its magically going to turn the place into Amsterdam or something.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Well, yeah, it was never that controversial in council. Plus, most of the people who actually care live in the suburbs or in industry.

They mention a 'Station Street connector' immediately after though- I think that's what I heard. What's that?

You missed the giant racket that the NPA made a couple of elections ago. With them holding a majority, they could make even more noise, but now, even DeGenova's come around (and/or realized her position was untenable)... and the one party that declared against the viaducts got K.O'ed back in 2018.

Hmm.... Station Street's the part that's supposed to be returned to Chinatown as two blocks of mid/highrises, so I'm guessing it's an intersection.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yeah, pretty sure it's for the junkies.
They should, but why at-grade? Overpasses and underpasses allow freer flow for both vehicles and pedestrians. Part of the city planning team is obsessed with having "street interaction" like its magically going to turn the place into Amsterdam or something.

MIGRANT, thank you!!! You are the first other person, AFAIK, who has endorsed overpasses and in particular underpasses. My diatribes about the merits of a "Hyde Park Underpass" have gone totally ignored, until you mentioned something similar just now in this post. I just hope that the idea catches on. Overpasses, but especially underpasses, would do so much to increase traffic fluidity.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by fredinno

They mention a 'Station Street connector' immediately after though- I think that's what I heard. What's that?

My assumption is that it refers to the new high street on the St Paul's Hospital Campus which will connect Gore Ave to the portion of Station St that runs in of front Pacific Central Station.

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...sportation.pdf

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

MIGRANT, thank you!!! You are the first other person, AFAIK, who has endorsed overpasses and in particular underpasses. My diatribes about the merits of a "Hyde Park Underpass" have gone totally ignored, until you mentioned something similar just now in this post. I just hope that the idea catches on. Overpasses, but especially underpasses, would do so much to increase traffic fluidity.

For pedestrians. Something like a Hyde Park tunnel isn't very worthwhile for just a 2km stretch, unless somehow there's enough money to go all the way to Clark.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

For pedestrians. Something like a Hyde Park tunnel isn't very worthwhile for just a 2km stretch, unless somehow there's enough money to go all the way to Clark.

Evidently my misinterpretation. I thought the underpass (or underpasses) would be for motor vehicles. ....... Alas

[Dave2]

Today is the 10th anniversary of the "Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?" thread.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Dave2

Today is the 10th anniversary of the "Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?" thread.

Ten more years! Ten more years!

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Ten more years! Ten more years!

Losing faith there?


10 years ago today:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Ya, this treehugger doesn't see the big picture. Those routes are pretty busy right now.. where would the traffic go? It won't disappear.

Although the Dunsmuir viaduct is a little awkward with the entrance off Main, it still takes traffic away from Pacific Blvd.

It does present some interesting challenges for the city's NEFC plan, but just makes it more interesting IMHO.

And you sounded just like me back then, lol!

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

And you sounded just like me back then, lol!

Yeah but I grew up.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

My assumption is that it refers to the new high street on the St Paul's Hospital Campus which will connect Gore Ave to the portion of Station St that runs in of front Pacific Central Station.

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...sportation.pdf

Ah. Not sure how much it's needed, but adding to the grid is always nice.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Dude, "regular bus line." Right now, the 23 is a community shuttle, with the 6 doing most of the work; 40-footers won't be a good fit for the route or the road grid.

Oh. Though, TBF, any BRT system is most likely to use artics.

Pacific (old or new) is nowhere near maximum car or bus saturation. A two-lane Prior accelerates that saturation, yes, but current levels of traffic should still be manageable; by the time they aren't, the viaducts/Pacific combo would likely be backed up too. And the Hastings SkyTrain should be running by then - which is where much of the traffic's coming from - so commuter flow shouldn't be a massive problem.

From my previous post:http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=5772

...Study points out that removing the viaducts "Requires significant diversion of existing trips to transit" and that the traffic removed from the Viaducts fills up Expo/Pacific nearly entirely. Note the new road only improves capacity on Expo/Pacific by 1 lane.

I have no idea how anyone is expected to use Keefer or Alexander to get into Downtown, so that leaves Hastings, Pender, and Powell for excess capacity. A decent chunk for traffic surges, but you leave no space for potential demand growth due to planned redevelopments in East Van (where most of these people are coming from.)

"The Hastings Skytrain should be running by then"
You should know as much as I do that making such assumptions for something that isn't even on TransLink's official 'to-do' list is dangerous. TransLink is only building Broadway now, once the existing network can literally no longer be upgraded to support demand. Considering the DTES problem, TransLink could very well decide to ignore Hastings until the 95B hits the same point the 99B is at now.

Also: https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/nefc-...assessment.pdf
From the COV.



Their own study acknowledges that there will be more congestion in both scenarios, with trips taking up to a minute longer.

The lower increase in car traffic on the growth scenario with the viaducts is apparently due to the fact that Pacific/Expo is effectively a bypass to the West End and Yaletown, rather than going directly to the CBD, resulting in less overall cars being transported.
If so, then the new street should be 8-10 lanes for the most optimal solution for transportation- not 6! I would be perfectly fine (and probably most other people who are against removing the viaducts with removing the viaducts if they did that. They'd still get most of the land the viaducts waste for RE development (which is located on the Eastern Blocks).
Everyone wins.

To me, this proves, the COV literally does not care about people and goods movement. They should never get to decide the layout of the MRN. I doubt we'd get this situation if 99A/1A was still in provincial hands.

They should, but why at-grade? Overpasses and underpasses allow freer flow for both vehicles and pedestrians. Part of the city planning team is obsessed with having "street interaction" like its magically going to turn the place into Amsterdam or something.

You just answered your question.

Even if you can't build an overpass over the viaducts (I mean, Aqualini proposed building a tower over a Skytrain Station, so it's not that far-fetched )
TBF, it's not THAT bad for pedestrians compared to the rest of Downtown once you build up the area around it. Higher speeds on Expo/Pacific are a big deal, but the flip side are the narrower street crossings. I guess choose your poison?

You missed the giant racket that the NPA made a couple of elections ago. With them holding a majority, they could make even more noise, but now, even DeGenova's come around (and/or realized her position was untenable)... and the one party that declared against the viaducts got K.O'ed back in 2018.

Yeah, if it was long ago, I probably missed it.

Hmm.... Station Street's the part that's supposed to be returned to Chinatown as two blocks of mid/highrises, so I'm guessing it's an intersection.

Station Street is already blocked and does not pass through the viaducts. Actually, considering the new connector, (thanks Feathered Friend), it would have been ideal for the old Station Street paralleling the block with the hospital to be 'filled in' and the old apartment blocks on it being densified (either into rental or offices). Too bad it's not a part of the project.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Oh. Though, TBF, any BRT system is most likely to use artics.

Artics on Quebec? That's gonna be even more of a problem.

Originally Posted by fredinno

From my previous post:http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=5772

"The Hastings Skytrain should be running by then"
You should know as much as I do that making such assumptions for something that isn't even on TransLink's official 'to-do' list is dangerous. TransLink is only building Broadway now, once the existing network can literally no longer be upgraded to support demand. Considering the DTES problem, TransLink could very well decide to ignore Hastings until the 95B hits the same point the 99B is at now.

Also: https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/nefc-...assessment.pdf
From the COV.

Their own study acknowledges that there will be more congestion in both scenarios, with trips taking up to a minute longer.

The lower increase in car traffic on the growth scenario with the viaducts is apparently due to the fact that Pacific/Expo is effectively a bypass to the West End and Yaletown, rather than going directly to the CBD, resulting in less overall cars being transported.
If so, then the new street should be 8-10 lanes for the most optimal solution for transportation- not 6! I would be perfectly fine (and probably most other people who are against removing the viaducts with removing the viaducts if they did that. They'd still get most of the land the viaducts waste for RE development (which is located on the Eastern Blocks).
Everyone wins.

To me, this proves, the COV literally does not care about people and goods movement. They should never get to decide the layout of the MRN. I doubt we'd get this situation if 99A/1A was still in provincial hands.

So you did... and it's an eight year old study. The more recent ones (adjusting for even less car trips downtown) say that such traffic is unlikely, or at least not much worse than right now. Even more so if motor traffic downtown continues to drop, and TransLink is able to get bus routes going in the area; I mentioned the Hastings Line as a hypothetical bonus, not a Hail Mary pass.

Unless Georgia can be widened to 8-10 lanes from the existing 4-6, there's not much point. We'd still be stuck with a bottleneck. Both Pacific and Expo westbound will still exist, and Expo will be mostly unchanged, so there's still a bypass to Yaletown/Davie.
As for the whole "1-4 minutes" thing, feel free to wade into ten years' worth of circlejerking about it. I'm much less concerned about it than I used to be; downtown rush hour is a mind-numbing slog in general, viaducts or no viaducts. Probably more effective to gain those minutes back by removing at-grade crossings.

We all agree that two-laning Prior is a dumb move. Hopefully, the rebuild keeps two vestigial lanes that can be repurposed as bus lanes.

Originally Posted by fredinno

You just answered your question.

Even if you can't build an overpass over the viaducts (I mean, Aqualini proposed building a tower over a Skytrain Station, so it's not that far-fetched
TBF, it's not THAT bad for pedestrians compared to the rest of Downtown once you build up the area around it. Higher speeds on Expo/Pacific are a big deal, but the flip side are the narrower street crossings. I guess choose your poison?

Ever tried getting from Beatty to Abbott or the seawall? Or Pacific to Main? Compare and contrast the actual walk with the rest of downtown (or most of the City while we're at it), and it's a hell of a lot more complicated than it should be. The Aquilini proposal was definitely cool, but the more you learn about the area, you figure that most other projects in the area would suffer; this kind of grade separation inconveniences all kinds of traffic save drivers/cyclists from Strathcona.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So you did... and it's an eight year old study. The more recent ones (adjusting for even less car trips downtown) say that such traffic is unlikely, or at least not much worse than right now. Even more so if motor traffic downtown continues to drop, and TransLink is able to get bus routes going in the area; I mentioned the Hastings Line as a hypothetical bonus, not a Hail Mary pass.

I quoted 2 studies, the 2nd one is from August 2018, and is from the COV's own website. It's the one that says avg. travel times increase by a minute without the viaducts.

How is Translink supposed to get more buses in? Unless there are no major traffic problems associated with removing the viaducts.

My point is that ay plans for better transit in the area are far behind the removal of the road system; something you yourself agreed with as 'putting the cart before the horse.'

Unless Georgia can be widened to 8-10 lanes from the existing 4-6, there's not much point. We'd still be stuck with a bottleneck. Both Pacific and Expo westbound will still exist, and Expo will be mostly unchanged, so there's still a bypass to Yaletown/Davie.

You may not have noticed, but Georgia/Dunsmuir are one-way roads currently. We don't need Georgia to be 8 lanes.

Speaking of one direction- Expo only moves in 1 direction, and remains so in the NEFC plan.

Probably more effective to gain those minutes back by removing at-grade crossings.

And how exactly is removing the viaducts supposed to help with that?

Ever tried getting from Beatty to Abbott or the seawall? Or Pacific to Main? Compare and contrast the actual walk with the rest of downtown (or most of the City while we're at it), and it's a hell of a lot more complicated than it should be.

Yes.

TBF, I'm the kind of person who gets lost pretty easily in Downtown proper walking.

There is a fairly easy way through down to the seawall though- go through the stairwell at Paris Place. Pretty convenient once you know to go down there.

most other projects in the area would suffer

Why?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yeah but I grew up.

Sure....

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Ten more years! Ten more years!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I quoted 2 studies, the 2nd one is from August 2018, and is from the COV's own website. It's the one that says avg. travel times increase by a minute without the viaducts.

How is Translink supposed to get more buses in? Unless there are no major traffic problems associated with removing the viaducts.

My point is that ay plans for better transit in the area are far behind the removal of the road system; something you yourself agreed with as 'putting the cart before the horse.'

Yes, and the 2018 one does not anticipate major traffic problems like the 2011 one does (IIRC, the prediction was 3-4 minutes back then). A minute of extra congestion translates to one more red light.

From the 2018 study (page 9): "Similar to general vehicle traffic, decrease in average vehicle travel time between 15-20% relative to the one-way network operations. Also offers increased flexibility of bus routes with less circuitous route choice." There's potential for two intersecting regular routes straight down both Pacific and Quebec, as opposed to just the 23 on a miniature Gran Turismo circuit.

I posted that as a reaction to a two-lane Prior; almost the entire forum agrees that it's a bad idea. OTOH, the viaducts would allow for better transit if removed.

Originally Posted by fredinno

You may not have noticed, but Georgia/Dunsmuir are one-way roads currently. We don't need Georgia to be 8 lanes.

Speaking of one direction- Expo only moves in 1 direction, and remains so in the NEFC plan.

And how exactly is removing the viaducts supposed to help with that?

You were talking about an 8-10 lane Pacific. Without the rework, there's no talk of extra lanes anywhere... and with the rework, Georgia becomes two-way and Dunsmuir becomes a dead-end. Unless we rebuild the former to match Pacific, the traffic merging is going to create as much (or more) congestion than a six-lane.

It does. And there's no reason to change that, unless you want a counterflow lane in the middle of nowhere. It allows Pacific westbound to be two lanes and calm.

How does keeping the viaducts help? I'm suggesting a partial separation of the pedestrian grid from the road grid; what we've got is a shared grid on top of another shared grid, neither of which properly connect to each other.

Originally Posted by fredinno

TBF, I'm the kind of person who gets lost pretty easily in Downtown proper walking.

There is a fairly easy way through down to the seawall though- go through the stairwell at Paris Place. Pretty convenient once you know to go down there.

Why?

That's fair... though if a conventional grid is confusing, NEFC's ramen spill should be even more so!

Paris Place is good for accessing the Tinseltown area from the SkyTrain area. For Rogers Arena/Costco or further south from BC Place, it'd be just as good to have a direct path down Georgia to the seawall.

Because with the viaducts in the way, most developments would be effectively cut off from downtown, and vice versa. The futuristic vision of a towers under and around the viaducts with a "high street" along the walkways and elevators to the seawall sounded great when I thought of it in high school, but does not survive contact with its own logistics.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Because with the viaducts in the way, most developments would be effectively cut off from downtown, and vice versa. The futuristic vision of a towers under and around the viaducts with a "high street" along the walkways and elevators to the seawall sounded great when I thought of it in high school, but does not survive contact with its own logistics.

I'd counter that most recent developments that are adjacent have fronted the viaducts and extended sidewalks along them. The natural grade ends at Beatty, everything beyond is an extension of the downtown grid on top of the viaducts or adjacent development.