Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[jlousa]

Don't forget the meeting is this morning at 9:30, hope some of the supporters of the viaducts can show up. At least send an email to mayor and council.

[jlousa]

Got stuck at work this morning due to two emergencies. Had to fire off an email instead of going.

Metro-one did you end up going? Sounds like Canadian Mind is there, he just called me. Canadian Mind I tried returning your call but it's going straight to voicemail and it says it's not set up.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Got stuck at work this morning due to two emergencies. Had to fire off an email instead of going.

Metro-one did you end up going? Sounds like Canadian Mind is there, he just called me. Canadian Mind I tried returning your call but it's going straight to voicemail and it says it's not set up.

Yea, I'm here. Still haven't gotten to the viaduct portion yet, it's all pedestrian safety still. Had to shut my phone off when the meeting started. Able to send me a text or email?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Got stuck at work this morning due to two emergencies. Had to fire off an email instead of going.

Metro-one did you end up going? Sounds like Canadian Mind is there, he just called me. Canadian Mind I tried returning your call but it's going straight to voicemail and it says it's not set up.

Yeah, sorry guys, I ended up getting stuck at work as well. Usually Tuesday is pretty flexible but my boss is leaving for Europe for a month on Thursday, so i had to stay for some last minute meetings, sucks ballllls!!!

Thank you for picking up our slack Canadian Mind.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Yeah, sorry guys, I ended up getting stuck at work as well. Usually Tuesday is pretty flexible but my boss is leaving for Europe for a month on Thursday, so i had to stay for some last minute meetings, sucks ballllls!!!

Thank you for picking up our slack Canadian Mind.

Honestly, going to the meeting was pointless. No new points were made, and the floor wasn't open to the public.

One thing I did learn though, in order to maintain the viaducts at their current capacity for the duration of their lifespan, maintenance is only supposed to come in at 10 million bucks, which boils down to 1.6 cents per use in both directions. I'll post more later.

And Anon is our only ally in the whole situation, which is sad considering none of the other councillors care about her concerns. Hell, the mayor went so far as to say "What the fuck is wrong with her?" to whomever was sitting to his left when she suggested that reducing hasting to 30kph might not be the best solution. Had the look on his face of a MADD advocate who's child just got arrested for drunk driving.

How else can I bash how dumb the council was? Oh yes, JL, I was sitting right behind Geoff when he "read" your email. Took him less then 30 seconds before he wrote his response, so I don't think he honestly read the whole thing.


Edit - ok, a couple new points were made, but I was so sick of wasting nearly 6 hours of my time for 2-3 new things I let my emotions come over me. My apologies, please read my most recent post (#1831) for more info.

[CrazyCommute]

One of the craziest things about this entirely crazy debate is the fact that if this bunch of wingnuts gets enough wingnuts to vote them back in, and they actually tear down the viaducts, Georgia Street -- yup, the "main drag" through the village -- will become a cul-de-sac at its eastern end. That would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

...And Anon is our only ally in the whole situation, which is sad considering none of the other councillors care about her concerns. Hell, the mayor went so far as to say "What the fuck is wrong with her?" to whomever was sitting to his left when she suggested that reducing hasting to 30kph might not be the best solution. Had the look on his face of a MADD advocate who's child just got arrested for drunk driving...

Seriously? The Mayor of Vancouver used that kind of language when speaking of Councillor Suzanne Anton?!

Apparently, when he thinks nobody is listening the no-class loser Robertson actually is sneaks out.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Seriously? The Mayor of Vancouver used that kind of language when speaking of Councillor Suzanne Anton?!

Apparently, when he thinks nobody is listening the no-class loser Robertson actually is sneaks out.

I couldn't hear him speak, too far back, so I can't be 100%. All I've got is that with my current career choice I've learned to be fairly apt at reading lips. I'm sticking behind it though considering his associated physical reactions to her comments. Not much else you can fit into a sentence with only 7 syllables and that kinda look on your face.

I left the meeting looking at him specifically like a villain, but was it ever bad as a whole. The Afghan's had a better democratic system running in the Panjwai District when I was overseas.

[whatnext]

In an interview with the Georgia Straight, Meggs once again reveals what a blithering idiot he is:

“The viaducts are slowly reaching the end of any use they had, if they had any to begin with,” said Meggs.
http://www.straight.com/article-4071...ducts-launched

Uh yeah, carrying vehicles over several sets of active railway tracks and up an escarpment would count as "useful" Councillor Meggs.

[WarrenC12]

This is the last straw for me. What a total waste of money. I'm ok with bike lanes, chicken farming, and some of the other stuff coming from city hall, but going forward with this waste of a study means I won't be voting for Gregor. And I'll make sure I let him know why.

[Canadian Mind]

Now that I have had time to digest the event a little bit, some positive tidbits:

The majority of public speakers were reps of community groups, advocacies, or lobbyists. Often these groups sent up more than one speaker, and often they had other members of their group in the crowd who would cheer on speakers upon hitting a point home, or when a councillor said something they like. I think it would be in our best interest to form our own group that focuses on acting as a sober second thought on development throughout the Metro. Not necessarily based on SSP, but using the website as a base to find supporting members, maybe Dylan would lend us some webspace, etc. It might give us more leverage if we appear as a special interest group vice general populous.

Something that was mentioned in the article was that anyone can submit a concept for what they want the NEFC area to look like. So whether you as an individual want to submit a suggestion, or all of us get together and draw up our own concept for the NEFC (hopefully including viaducts & Malkin connector), maybe we could push those forwards over the next 8-9 months.

Speaking with the rep from the Strathcona's Residence Association (Christ I hope I got that right), the opinions seem fairly split in Strathcona on whether the Malkin connector and the downgrading of Prior would serve the interests of the neighbourhood or not. He's personally of the opinion it would. Again, maybe someone we could see is an ally in this whole mess.



One more thing that may be perceived as negative from the meeting, something that was tacked onto the end of the pedestrian safety proposal (which included the 30kph Hastings zone) was for the city to lobby Translink into including biker routes into their upcoming MRN study in the hopes of encouraging Translink to redevelop the networks to include bike lanes. The reasons for this were not really specified, other then cyclist can be lonely when going down side streets. One immediate concern brought up was the quality of ride though, with cyclists being exposed to noise and air pollution. A more important concern to me would be that of a cyclist being hit by some idiot motorist who jumps the barrier. But I'm willing to bet council could have used that as reason for more 30kph zones.

[WarrenC12]

As a cyclist who rides mostly on major roads with painted lanes, and through side streets designated as "cycling routes", I am more confident when I have a specific painted or separated lane. Car drivers seem aware of it.

When somebody is tooling through side streets, likely close to home and typically not very busy, they are often ignoring signage, driving too fast, not looking, etc.

So I'd rather real painted lanes on roads like Broadway (just an example ) vs. more bike designated side streets... although the rides themselves are nicer in some ways.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

As a cyclist who rides mostly on major roads with painted lanes, and through side streets designated as "cycling routes", I am more confident when I have a specific painted or separated lane. Car drivers seem aware of it.

When somebody is tooling through side streets, likely close to home and typically not very busy, they are often ignoring signage, driving too fast, not looking, etc.

So I'd rather real painted lanes on roads like Broadway (just an example ) vs. more bike designated side streets... although the rides themselves are nicer in some ways.

I got no issues with bike lanes, but I'm worried about the council's intent. it feels like their motive for bike lanes along the MRN is to degrade the car-carrying capacity in order to reduce cars, rather than providing an effective alternate mode of transportation.

[Millennium2002]

Council is forward-looking... but perhaps too much. Before long they're going to stifle this city with their weird traffic-related ideas and turn it into a high-density residential suburb for some other city in the region. =S

[Mousey]

At least from what Global News reported, they wouldn't be torn down for 10-15 years anyways, and a lot could change in that time. I 100% want them to stay, but if the decision is made to tear them down, it won't happen for a long time. Lots of time to implement proper transit around the area, and improve other nearby streets into Downtown. I liked what the SFU professor said. (I don't remember his name) He stated that he is against tearing them down since 43,000 vehicles use them daily. But if proper transit and road upgrades are put in place to ease the traffic load, it could work. I have to agree with that, but certainly want them to stay since they are so useful for keeping traffic moving.

[dreambrother808]

Thanks for the rational response.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by Mousey

At least from what Global News reported, they wouldn't be torn down for 10-15 years anyways, and a lot could change in that time. I 100% want them to stay, but if the decision is made to tear them down, it won't happen for a long time. Lots of time to implement proper transit around the area, and improve other nearby streets into Downtown. I liked what the SFU professor said. (I don't remember his name) He stated that he is against tearing them down since 43,000 vehicles use them daily. But if proper transit and road upgrades are put in place to ease the traffic load, it could work. I have to agree with that, but certainly want them to stay since they are so useful for keeping traffic moving.

I see things the same way.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Mousey

At least from what Global News reported, they wouldn't be torn down for 10-15 years anyways, and a lot could change in that time. I 100% want them to stay, but if the decision is made to tear them down, it won't happen for a long time. Lots of time to implement proper transit around the area, and improve other nearby streets into Downtown. I liked what the SFU professor said. (I don't remember his name) He stated that he is against tearing them down since 43,000 vehicles use them daily. But if proper transit and road upgrades are put in place to ease the traffic load, it could work. I have to agree with that, but certainly want them to stay since they are so useful for keeping traffic moving.

I also agree with this.

The problem with the way it is being done now though is they are doing it backwards, putting the cart before the horse. They are so focused on the viaducts there is hardly a mention of what needs to happen first before anything can be done to them. Tearing down the viaducts would be the LAST step in any project, but it is all we ever hear about.

If they want to have a real study on the feasibility on tearing down the viaducts, it needs to first and foremost look at what needs to be done elsewhere on other roads to not cripple getting into the downtown from the east.

Something that is never talked about is Hastings. Sure it had its speed reduced, but at times it is like council is oblivious that it is one of the largest transit corridors in the region. I'm a little curious to the effects of the speed limit on the travel times of people on transit. And I hope the study properly considers the effects of added congestion on buses if the Viaducts are removed.

At times, it almost looks like a war on the poor. Its totally unintentional, but removing the viaducts impacts the lower income families (compared relative to those in the south and west) in the city. It's reducing their primary means of getting into downtown for many from the poorer parts of the city, while those in the nicer parts get 3 whole bridges to chose from. It's going to dump traffic onto Hastings, negatively affecting the DTES, and slowing down the buses (on Hastings and Powell) that carry many low to medium income earners to their city supporting jobs downtown.

I know they are not declaring war on the poor on purpose, but I think it is worse that they are completely oblivious to the ramifications their decisions can have on those who are not as advantaged as those on council. They are ignoring the problems of tens of thousands of the working class while focusing on the potential value of the land under the viaducts for several hundred well off condo buyers. It comes off as a land grab and a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.


The council should focus their primary efforts on improving transit first. Why spend this money on the study? Eventually, the viaducts will be removed one way or another (age, earthquake damage) and removing them early, 10 or 15 years from now, is only going to end up taking them out a dozen years before they would need to be removed anyway. It's like launching a study on if we should remove our baby teeth early; who cares, they fall out eventually anyway.

The study should completely focus on what does the city need to do to make sure this city works without the viaducts. Not when we should take them out (it will happen one way or another someday), but can this city survive without them. Can transit work on Hastings if traffic increases by 30,000 cars a day?

There are about 8 Vancouver bus lines Hastings/Powell (a few of which are the busiest non B-lines in the region), as well as popular lines out to SFU and the North Shore. The city should focus on the improvements that need to happen on Hastings before even considering a timeframe for removing the viaducts. That can't happen without rapid transit on Hastings and improved bus/streetcar service around downtown.

Also, why is this their biggest issue? What makes this the defining issue for the city and not streetcars? They want to be the greenest city, and a proper streetcar network will increase inefficiencies downtown and get people out of their cars. A streetcar network, for the cost of investment, can bring about instant improvements to the quality of life for those living and working and visiting downtown, whereas it will be decades before any benefits are realized from tearing down the viaducts. Council should go after the low hanging fruit first.

[racc]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I also agree with this.

The problem with the way it is being done now though is they are doing it backwards, putting the cart before the horse. They are so focused on the viaducts there is hardly a mention of what needs to happen first before anything can be done to them. Tearing down the viaducts would be the LAST step in any project, but it is all we ever hear about.

If they want to have a real study on the feasibility on tearing down the viaducts, it needs to first and foremost look at what needs to be done elsewhere on other roads to not cripple getting into the downtown from the east.

Uh, no. It is a problem with media coverage and how people are reacting. The city is planning on doing pretty much what you are suggesting. The Viaduct planning will be integrated with the new transportation plan and the planning for the False Creek Flats.

[jlousa]

umm no, the city is deciding what it can do with the land under the viaducts not how to fix the transportation issues that will arise, as the city has no control over provincial nor federal funding.
The city is shoping for a saddle, and hoping that sometime down the road someone will buy it a horse, not thinking about the possiblity that the saddle they just spent money on might not fit the pony they'll eventually get.