Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[WarrenC12]

GPS in cars monitored by a government or quasi-government agency? Not a chance.

[Canadian Mind]

Would make it fuckng easy to catch criminals though.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by racc

Actually, from 1997 to 2007, the number of automobile trips entering Vancouver is down by 10% and the number entering downtown is down by 7%. The mode share for automobiles (including passengers)downtown is only 39% while the mode share for trips within downtown is only 10%.

With the Canada Line, increased density, more people living downtown and with cycling improvements, the number of automobile trips will continue to decrease.

http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transpor...n-brochure.pdf

There has been a recent shift in car use downtown. But there is no guarantee that will continue. The main contributing factor to the decrease in car use downtown is over the last 10 years we have built an insane amount of condos downtown (so many that economists are baffled our housing market hasn't imploded).

Over the next 10 years, there will be less condo development compared to now, but job centers will continue to expand. There will still be job growth, but there won't be as much population growth in the city of Vancouver. This could lead to an increase in vehicle use. The report also doesn't bring up the growing fad of the reverse commute, where people in the city are commuting to other communities for work.

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Only 30% of the Metro's land area is developed urban area, the rest is ALR. So while I agree with you that dedicated attempts to reduce already existing capacity is stupid, you're going about it the wrong way.

Should compare the surface area of the streets in Paris to the surface area of streets in Vancouver, width of main thoroughfares, etc.

Trofiren would be one to talk to reference Paris traffic conditions, road network, etc.

I don't think I'm going about it in the wrong way. If someone else wants to compare the trends in Paris, you need to see that Paris provides transit in the same geographical area as Translink, but to 10 million people. And that the amount of people driving is the same as the entire population of metro Vancouver, in less total space. The Paris Metro has 245 of it's stations stations located in an area of 87km-squared. That's smaller than the City of Vancouver. Why do people in Paris not drive? because every single building in the City is within 500m of a subway station.

You can't achieve Paris like goals without Paris like Transit. Making life hard on people who drive isn't how Paris did it. They did it by making life easy for transit users. They used the carrot, not the stick.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I don't think I'm going about it in the wrong way. If someone else wants to compare the trends in Paris, you need to see that Paris provides transit in the same geographical area as Translink, but to 10 million people.

It's not like the area within Translink's Area Of Responsibility is all sprawl. The majority of it (I.E. 70%) is ALR that, while within Translink's AOR, is not, and never will be developed. As such it will never see service by Translink. And that the amount of people driving is the same as the entire population of metro Vancouver, in less total space.

If you are going to compare the areas served by transit, compare the geographically populated areas, not the farmland. I'm pretty damned sure if in a mirror universe Vancouver the ALR were developed in the same way as our Vancouver currently is (similar average density, road space per square km, etc) that this mirror universe Vancouver would have the same number of people on the roads as our Vancouver has total people too.

The Paris Metro has 245 of it's stations stations located in an area of 87km-squared. That's smaller than the City of Vancouver. Why do people in Paris not drive? because every single building in the City is within 500m of a subway station.

You can't achieve Paris like goals without Paris like Transit. Making life hard on people who drive isn't how Paris did it. They did it by making life easy for transit users. They used the carrot, not the stick.

And you can't achieve Paris-like transit without a Paris-like population base to support and pay for it.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Would make it fuckng easy to catch criminals though.

So would cameras in every home...

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So would cameras in every home...

Thats alot more personal than having a GPS attached to your car. Some creep can't watch you have sex with your wife with a car-mounted GPS.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

There has been a recent shift in car use downtown. But there is no guarantee that will continue. The main contributing factor to the decrease in car use downtown is over the last 10 years we have built an insane amount of condos downtown (so many that economists are baffled our housing market hasn't imploded).

Over the next 10 years, there will be less condo development compared to now, but job centers will continue to expand. There will still be job growth, but there won't be as much population growth in the city of Vancouver. This could lead to an increase in vehicle use. The report also doesn't bring up the growing fad of the reverse commute, where people in the city are commuting to other communities for work.

Exactly, where's a report detailing the amount of cars leaving downtown? What days and times is this report based on? Its useless without detail. All the stats could easily be used to illustrate a Central Business District in decline and becoming just another residential neighbourhood.

BTW drove across the viaduct into downtown yesterday at 11:00 am - lots of cars but not one cyclist or pedestrian.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

It's not like the area within Translink's Area Of Responsibility is all sprawl. The majority of it (I.E. 70%) is ALR that, while within Translink's AOR, is not, and never will be developed. As such it will never see service by Translink. And that the amount of people driving is the same as the entire population of metro Vancouver, in less total space.

If you are going to compare the areas served by transit, compare the geographically populated areas, not the farmland. I'm pretty damned sure if in a mirror universe Vancouver the ALR were developed in the same way as our Vancouver currently is (similar average density, road space per square km, etc) that this mirror universe Vancouver would have the same number of people on the roads as our Vancouver has total people too.


And you can't achieve Paris-like transit without a Paris-like population base to support and pay for it.

I think you are missing the point. I'm comparing the two because they are incomparable. I was defeating the comparison of Paris to the likes of Vancouver by racc. I was trying to evoke the insane imagery. Imagine if every square meter of ALR was like Surrey, mostly detached homes, we would still not be in the same league as Paris. They have over 10 million people in a densely urban area the size of Metro Vancouver. There is a reason Paris can achieve 75% of trips by transit, because it's Paris. I was getting at the point that we can't achieve 75% of trips by transit simply by tearing down some roads (the point of this whole thread). We need the transit options and capacity first.

But anyway...

There are 540 km-squared of ALR land in Metro Vancouver, that's about 20%. There is another The reason you include ALR in translink's area of responsibility is because ALR land is usually in the way. There are quite a few bus routes that need to travel through ALR land that has no population. It's draining on our resources to have to either go around or through unpopulated land. It either harms translink or harms the populations (through reduced service and long travel times). If we want to talk about spending money on LRT in the Valley, we have to realize we are going to spend tens of millions on sections of track that pass by absolutely nothing.

However, if you do want to compare something interesting with regards to Paris, the budget of the STIF is $10 billion Canadian for the Île-de-France region. That region has a population of 11.7 million and a density of 974 per kmsq (ours is 735). That's $854 per person. Here it's under $400 per person spent on transit. Paris also has a history of mega spending on transit improvements. Billions were spent on the RER behind closed doors with zero public consultation; taxes were raised and shovels were in the dirt before much of it was in the press.

Until Vancouver ups the ante with more Transit, I don't see the point of reducing infrastructure. You can't put the cart before the horse. The viaducts are important at the moment. Make them irrelevant first, instead of tearing them down first and hoping the rest falls into place at some random point in the future.

[Canadian Mind]

Fuck it, you win. Though I'm suprised so little of the region is actually ALR. Sat photo's make it appear as though the majority of the region is still forest or farmland. Makes it kinda scary thinking about how much room the Metro still has to expand.

[racc]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

There has been a recent shift in car use downtown. But there is no guarantee that will continue. The main contributing factor to the decrease in car use downtown is over the last 10 years we have built an insane amount of condos downtown (so many that economists are baffled our housing market hasn't imploded).

How about showing any research or facts to back up your opinion. Lets plan the city based on evidence, not just guesses.

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Over the next 10 years, there will be less condo development compared to now, but job centers will continue to expand.

Which helps make a strong case for replacing the viaducts with housing so more people can live near downtown thus further decreasing traffic and congestion in the city and throughout the region.

With North East False Creek and the build out of South East False Creek, it is not apparent that there will be much less condo development near downtown.

Originally Posted by BCPhil

There will still be job growth, but there won't be as much population growth in the city of Vancouver. This could lead to an increase in vehicle use. The report also doesn't bring up the growing fad of the reverse commute, where people in the city are commuting to other communities for work.

Regarding reverse commutes, there is plenty of road and transit capacity to support significant growth should this growth actually happen.

[city-dweller]

Sat photo's make it appear as though the majority of the region is still forest or farmland. Makes it kinda scary thinking about how much room the Metro still has to expand.

This is a common misunderstanding. Most of the "forest land" is parks. The "producing" agricultural land is actually quite small. Many of these properties are used for building large houses. The owner can just sell a horse to his neighbor and then buy it back the next year and it is a "horse farm" given agricultural status. Many areas in Surrey and Langely are actually residential under BC assessment authority although you could not tell from the road.

There isn't "much room to expand". This common perception that undeveloped land is unused is ignorant and most civic leaders would prefer it that way. Agricultural lands don't provide as much municipal taxes.

Current unpublished recommendations for agricultural lands is to hold on to what we have and to provide a lot more funding to the Agricultural Land Commission to actually do there job.

Development in urban areas provides more tax revenue for cities and less cost on utilities.

[jlousa]

I love it that people are still hanging on the idea that tearing down the viaducts would allow more people to live closer to downtown, where there is no additional density possible by removing them. But what do I know.

The reserve commute out of downtown has also been proven to be another myth by both the city and translink. I do agree completely with Racc that our system has incredible unused capacity going in the opposite direction. Translink could almost double ridership overnight w/o spending an extra dollar if demand was there. The Metro region concept of multi-hubs tries to address this very issue. That all said let the viaducts be and fix what is broken, if they can't think of anything then they should come on here and I'm sure they'd be flooded with problems to work on.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

GPS in cars monitored by a government or quasi-government agency? Not a chance.

Never heard of OnStar?

It's been available on GM cars since 1997 as an optional annual subscription, and relies on Cellular networks for the two-way voice communication and GPS for locating your car when you've been in an accident & are unable to respond to the OnStar person. Typically a GPS position is accurate within 25 feet.

To paraphrase the GM salesguy who was pumping me to sign up for it: "When you press the Red OnStar Emergency button or Blue OnStar button, current data about the vehicle and the vehicle's GPS location are immediately gathered and then sent to OnStar."

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by racc

How about showing any research or facts to back up your opinion. Lets plan the city based on evidence, not just guesses.

The facts aren't that hard to dispute. This city has seen a huge number of people move downtown in the last 10 years that did not live there before, has it not? There are not as many new condo towers under construction today as there were a few years ago, are there not? To keep the rate of growth constant downtown, construction of new condos would have to be higher this year than previous years, or else you are going see a slowdown in growth. I mean, these are pretty basic assumptions. In a system of a lot of variables, you can't maintain the same outcome if one or two of the variables start to fluctuate.

Now, if the future isn't quite going to be the same as the past, how can you use the trends of the past 10 years to accurately predict the future? How can you use statistics from an 8 century old city 5 times our size? How can you use the anecdotal evidence from a 3 week event to plan the next 30 years?

Originally Posted by racc

Which helps make a strong case for replacing the viaducts with housing so more people can live near downtown thus further decreasing traffic and congestion in the city and throughout the region.

Only so many people can live in that space, it can only be redeveloped once. After that MORE land is needed to keep the rate of population growth downtown constant, where is the land going to be found? At some point it will go back to being a situation where there isn't enough room for everyone who wants to work downtown to live downtown. Then people will have to live elsewhere and commute into downtown. It's just delaying the situation by a couple years, the only difference is without the viaducts there is lacking infrastructure to keep up with the rate of growth in commuting.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by racc

Which helps make a strong case for replacing the viaducts with housing so more people can live near downtown thus further decreasing traffic and congestion in the city and throughout the region.

If the object of taking down the Viaducts is the have more people live downtown. It would be better to just knock down the older buildings in the DTES and start to expand downtown through that corridor. Basically like the old Woodwards sight. The idea of knocking down the viaducts might give an extra tower or two. But you would still be back to the same problem of needing more towers.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by city-dweller

This is a common misunderstanding. Most of the "forest land" is parks. The "producing" agricultural land is actually quite small. Many of these properties are used for building large houses. The owner can just sell a horse to his neighbor and then buy it back the next year and it is a "horse farm" given agricultural status. Many areas in Surrey and Langely are actually residential under BC assessment authority although you could not tell from the road.

There isn't "much room to expand". This common perception that undeveloped land is unused is ignorant and most civic leaders would prefer it that way. Agricultural lands don't provide as much municipal taxes.

Current unpublished recommendations for agricultural lands is to hold on to what we have and to provide a lot more funding to the Agricultural Land Commission to actually do there job.

Development in urban areas provides more tax revenue for cities and less cost on utilities.

Thing about this region is that even if we were to completely throw out the ALR and build on it. All the way to hope. Eventually we would still still hit the exact same problem of running our of space. We don't live in a region that goes on for miles with no end in sight. It literally has a limit in all directions. Which I'm actually glad about

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Never heard of OnStar?

It's been available on GM cars since 1997 as an optional annual subscription, and relies on Cellular networks for the two-way voice communication and GPS for locating your car when you've been in an accident & are unable to respond to the OnStar person. Typically a GPS position is accurate within 25 feet.

To paraphrase the GM salesguy who was pumping me to sign up for it: "When you press the Red OnStar Emergency button or Blue OnStar button, current data about the vehicle and the vehicle's GPS location are immediately gathered and then sent to OnStar."

Two totally different options. I can't believe you people are talking about government monitoring to this extent as a reality. It's not going to happen, end of story!

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Two totally different options. I can't believe you people are talking about government monitoring to this extent as a reality. It's not going to happen, end of story!

Well there is the option that if someone doesn't want to be "monitored" as you call it. Then they get charged a high flat monthly rate. If you want to pay less then get the gps installed.

This system would be more fair than say putting up a toll on the bridges which only targets those who have to cross the bridge. Which also will tell the government that you were in a place at a certain time. This would target anyone who drives no matter where they drive.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Would make it fuckng easy to catch criminals though.

From the OnStar wiki:

"Starting 2009, General Motors began equipping some new vehicles with Stolen Vehicle Slowdown.[2] This feature allows OnStar to remotely slow down the stolen vehicle. The service is also expected to help reduce the risk of property damage, serious injuries or fatalities resulting from high-speed pursuits of stolen vehicles. Customers may opt out of that function.[3] The first successful use of this service occurred in October 2009 when a stolen Chevrolet Tahoe was recovered and its suspected thief was apprehended. [4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar

Ever notice that jails aren't filled with smart criminals?

[officedweller]

Terms of Reference for a study proposed to be undertaken by the City:

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...ents/penv3.pdf

RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT Council endorse undertaking the Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaducts Study, generally in accordance with the Terms of Reference in Appendix A.

B. THAT Council approve the request for consultants, temporary staffing and other program components to undertake the Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaducts Study as outlined in the budget in Appendix B, at a cost not exceeding $695,000; source of funds to be $300,000 from the 2010 Streets Basic Capital Budget (A4A3 Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaduct Study), as approved, and $395,000 as approved in advance of the 2011 Streets Basic Capital Budget.

...

The study will consider a number of options for the viaducts described briefly below, and more fully in Appendix C:

1. Maintain the viaducts;

2. Alter the viaducts so they come down to merge with Pacific Boulevard/ Expo Boulevard in as short a distance as possible;

3. Alter the viaducts so that they come down to the Main Street intersection;

4. Keep the Dunsmuir Viaduct, remove the Georgia Viaduct;

5. Complete removal of both viaducts, and

6. Removal of both viaducts with consideration of elevating/realigning the SkyTrain guideway to normalize the grid (can be considered for both options 2 and 5).

See Appendix C for rough drawings.