HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4941  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2017, 4:55 AM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by red-paladin View Post
I'm nor sure it ever mattered who was in power provincially. The viaducts are coming down regardless.
Ding ding, winner. Nobody ever mentioned it provincially except idiot-boy Todd Stone, who quickly backtracked.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4942  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2017, 6:51 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
There's a difference between trying to simply remove a road from the Major Road Network altogether vs. substitute one route for another, which is what Vancouver's plan is.
Nada. Delta previously requested both the MRN as well as MTR designation for Ladner Trunk Road (formerly Hwy 10) east of Hwy 17A. They were turned down.

Subsequently, Delta again petitioned Translink to remove said MRN/MTR section and it was granted due to the following:

1. Construction completion of SFPR in close proximity;

2. Addition of exit ramp from Hwy 99 to said Ladner Trunk road to Boundary bay Airport;

Again, superior alternative resulted in Translink removing the MTN/MTR designations for that section of Ladner Trunk Road.

Not so whatsoever with the Georgia/Dunsmuir viaducts:

Quote:
"We would take 11 lanes of traffic and replace it with six."
http://journalofcommerce.com/Project...ject-1021458W/

IOW, remove the current 5 twin viaduct lanes and just keep the current 6-lanes of Pacific Blvd - but just re-aligned.

Last edited by Stingray2004; Jul 16, 2017 at 7:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4943  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2017, 7:07 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by red-paladin View Post
I'm nor sure it ever mattered who was in power provincially. The viaducts are coming down regardless.
Sorry, but that's just political rhetoric coming out of Van City and obviously your own bias showing. Absolutely nothing to do with the real world. To wit:

1. Translink must prepare report on same satisfying the following:

- All Stakeholders - MoTI, BC Trucking Association, Port of Metro Vancouver, PAVCO et al inclusive of all regional Metro Van municipalities must support removal;

2. 2 public opinion polls (Justasen/Insights) show clear opposition to removal of viaducts;

3) $200 million+ cost of demolition will likely require capital referendum at next municipal election in November 2018;

4) Mayor Robertson wants both feds and province to financially contribute to demolition. Tells me that Van City unable to do so on own resources. Good luck with that. Politically dead issue for feds/prov;

5) The former Van City director of transportation, until retirement 2008, concurs the viaducts should remain:

Quote:
Ian Adam, former City of Vancouver senior manager who was once in charge of the transportation department, is questioning the need to demolish the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts.

“Anybody who thinks you can take down two major viaducts like that, which handles 60,000 people a day and a thousand heavy trucks a day — and not have some impact — they’ve got to be dreaming in Technicolor,” said Adam, who once held the position of what is now called director of transportation. “I would say leave them up. They’re a $100-million asset that’s doing a job.”
https://www.biv.com/article/2015/8/r...tion-question/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4944  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2017, 3:33 PM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
Again, superior alternative resulted in Translink removing the MTN/MTR designations for that section of Ladner Trunk Road.

Not so whatsoever with the Georgia/Dunsmuir viaducts...
The claim of "11 lanes of traffic" for the viaducts pretty much destroys the whole credibility of that piece, IMHO.

And I note that Vancouver has already successfully reduced the capacity of the viaducts by designating one of the lanes for bicycles. Translink didn't seem to balk at that...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4945  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2017, 8:27 PM
VancouverOfTheFuture's Avatar
VancouverOfTheFuture VancouverOfTheFuture is online now
Vancouverite
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 940
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
Translink didn't seem to balk at that...
that's because only the Georgia Viaduct is in the MRN/MTN. Dunsmuir is not so is at the whim of the city. if TransLink were to say no, CoV could still take down Dunsmuir but not Georgia. and the odds of them taking down 1 without the other; unlikely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4946  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2017, 3:51 AM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture View Post
that's because only the Georgia Viaduct is in the MRN/MTN. Dunsmuir is not so is at the whim of the city.
I'm not talking about Dunsmuir, I'm talking about the westbound viaduct, where one lane was repurposed for bicycles. Translink didn't seem to have a problem with that. So as long as equivalent capacity (which is now two downtown-bound lanes) is provided, it's not obvious to me why they wouldn't go along with it.
And heck, the precedent of the bicycle lane already shows that they could potentially go along with reduced capacity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4947  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2017, 4:03 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
The claim of "11 lanes of traffic" for the viaducts pretty much destroys the whole credibility of that piece, IMHO.
That's quoted from none other than Devan Fitch, City of Vancouver manager of project delivery and engineering services. IOW, he stated that the current 11 lanes of traffic (5 viaduct/6 Pacific Blvd) will be replaced by just the 6 current/ reconfigured Pacific Blvd lanes.

By all Translink precedents, that's an "inferior" replacement, which would not be eligible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture View Post
that's because only the Georgia Viaduct is in the MRN/MTN. Dunsmuir is not so is at the whim of the city. if TransLink were to say no, CoV could still take down Dunsmuir but not Georgia. and the odds of them taking down 1 without the other; unlikely.
Correction. Georgia Viaduct is MRN to Main Street. Both Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts are part of MTR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4948  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2017, 4:00 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
I'm not talking about Dunsmuir, I'm talking about the westbound viaduct, where one lane was repurposed for bicycles. Translink didn't seem to have a problem with that. So as long as equivalent capacity (which is now two downtown-bound lanes) is provided, it's not obvious to me why they wouldn't go along with it.
And heck, the precedent of the bicycle lane already shows that they could potentially go along with reduced capacity.
Maybe that's why the westbound viaduct is always jammed up during rush hours, or when there are events at the stadiums these day? I don't seem to remember that being the case before the bike lane installation. Removing the viaducts would make that way worse when all the traffic is now channeled to the streets below, not to mention that more residents need to deal with it literally in front of their residences.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4949  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2017, 4:07 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
Maybe that's why the westbound viaduct is always jammed up during rush hours, or when there are events at the stadiums these day? I don't seem to remember that being the case before the bike lane installation. Removing the viaducts would make that way worse when all the traffic is now channeled to the streets below, not to mention that more residents need to deal with it literally in front of their residences.
The viaducts are backed up because of the traffic lights at Beatty and Citadel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4950  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2017, 4:48 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
The viaducts are backed up because of the traffic lights at Beatty and Citadel.
Maybe so, but if one more lane is opened for regular traffic, it would be 33% more capacity for the viaduct, meaning the backup would be a third (or more) shorter and for congestion time reduced.

Currently there is only one through/left turn traffic lane and one for right turn. If there are at least 2 lanes for traffic to go straight through, I'm sure the clogging would be lessened.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.27868...7i13312!8i6656
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4951  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2017, 5:02 PM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
Maybe so, but if one more lane is opened for regular traffic, it would be 33% more capacity for the viaduct, meaning the backup would be a third (or more) shorter and for congestion time reduced.
The choke points are at the ends of the viaduct, not at the viaduct itself. There are the equivalent of 4 lanes of traffic leading on to the westbound viaduct (2 lanes on Prior and 2 left turn lanes from Main Street), but those lanes have traffic lights and traffic is blocked from proceeding on them for approximately 50% of the time (less so on Prior and more so on Main). So the maximum amount of traffic that can flow onto the viaducts is approximately 2 lanes' worth, give or take a bit.

3 lanes might bring a tad more capacity, but it's not going to be anywhere near the 50% more you'd expect from just the lane count alone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4952  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 11:42 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,339
Opinion: Vancouver viaducts demolition to be the worst transportation policy in city's history


http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/opini...-citys-history


Totally agree with this.
Should look at the poll at the end of the article too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4953  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2017, 4:52 AM
retro_orange retro_orange is online now
retro_orange
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: East Van
Posts: 1,433
because there's so much legitimacy from the source...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4954  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2017, 12:07 PM
trofirhen's Avatar
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,308
§ we might just make it after all ... §

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
Opinion: Vancouver viaducts demolition to be the worst transportation policy in city's history


http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/opini...-citys-history


Totally agree with this.
Should look at the poll at the end of the article too.
Wow! 63% want to keep them. I thought it would be rather different, with a majority wanting them down. But no! Good! Maybe Vancouver will still be a city and not Cutsieville-By-The-Sea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4955  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2017, 6:28 PM
MIPS's Avatar
MIPS MIPS is offline
SkyTrain Nut
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Kamloops
Posts: 867
With Robertson around I can assure you the viaducts are going weather the public want it or not. He has far too much money stuffed in his pants by investors.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4956  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2017, 7:25 PM
trofirhen's Avatar
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIPS View Post
With Robertson around I can assure you the viaducts are going weather the public want it or not. He has far too much money stuffed in his pants by investors.
If that really is what's going to be, I might suggest getting a design ready for a central tunnel, as sort of
'Hyde Park Underpass' type thing to take through traffic past all the intersections around Georgia St.
Here in Vancouver, people will never go for it, I know. Too bad, really.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4957  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2017, 12:27 AM
s211 s211 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIPS View Post
With Robertson around I can assure you the viaducts are going weather the public want it or not. He has far too much money stuffed in his pants by the Sierra Club.
Fixed that for ya.
__________________
If it seems I'm ignoring what you may have written in response to something I have written, it's very likely that you're on my Ignore List. Please do not take it personally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4958  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2017, 7:35 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 899
Quote:
Originally Posted by s211 View Post
Fixed that for ya.
I highly doubt that the Sierra Club would want to be involved with the emissions resulting from near-gridlock.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:53 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.