Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[biketrouble]

You know as well as I do that plans for SEFC are far more advanced than those for NEFC, and that if NEFC plans were as far advanced this thread would not exist.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

You know as well as I do that plans for SEFC are far more advanced than those for NEFC, and that if NEFC plans were as far advanced this thread would not exist.

The NEFC is in its beginning phases, of course the SEFC plans are more developed.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

Of course there are plans, I'm well aware of them, thanks.

But why is it, do you think, that NEFC is the *last* part of False Creek to be built out? Are you really suggesting that the viaducts have not been a disincentive to development here?

Umm, I'd guess it has something to do with being closest to the junkie-ridden freakshow that is the DES.

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by deasine

The NEFC is in its beginning phases, of course the SEFC plans are more developed.

So which of the following do you believe?

1) NEFC planning is only now in the beginning phases partly because the viaducts are a disincentive to development.
2) NEFC planning has not been affected by the presence of the viaducts.
3) NEFC planning would be even more delayed if the viaducts weren't there.

Just so we're clear, I think it would be absurd to believe 3) and pretty silly to believe 2).

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by whatnext

What car-bashers conveniently ignore are the great strides in standard of living in the 20th century that were made possible by the car.

This is debatable for so many reasons:

[Your comment represents something of a tangent to the discussion. Yet, since the mods aren't calling "troll" on this, it seems fair to engage with it, especially since I'm implicated (somewhat unfairly and artificially) as one of the "car-bashers"]

1) The inner-city ghettoization of North America's urban poor from the 1950s to the 1980s, as proto-suburbanites flee the city en masse to escape the influx of racial and cultural "undesirables".
2) The enormous government subsidies required to build automobile-centred communities (at least transit users pay fees), and the shifting of deficit burdens onto everyone (including people who don't use highways personally), which in turn precludes spending on other valuable social commodities - eg. healthcare, education, etc.
3) The further subsidies required to service these unwieldy, disconnected areas with law enforcement, as well as utilities such as roads, sewers, etc.
4) The environmental toll of the automobile, whether in the form of carbon emissions, or that of encroachment onto valuable farm- and wildland by parking lots, freeways, and single family home 'neighborhoods'
5) The social toll of spatially disconnected suburban living
6) The health toll of an increasingly obese generation living in a more polluted environment - again, very taxing for the health-care system

In sum, the automobile as we know it has created enormous problems, alongside making life easier for the people who need it most - eg. tradespeople, commercial shippers, doctors and farmers. Addressing these glaring difficulties is not necessarily about eradicating one form of transport, but rather about rejecting wholesale socialized car-culture, having car owners pay user fees proportionate to the infrastructure they drive on (much like transit-riders who pay to use their system), and spending our tax dollars in ways that yield better fiscal, social and ecological dividends.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

...especially since I'm implicated (somewhat unfairly and artificially) as one of the "car-bashers"].....In sum, the automobile as we know it has created enormous problems....

Yeah, how could anyone think you are opposed to cars?

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

....having car owners pay user fees proportionate to the infrastructure they drive on (much like transit-riders who pay to use their system)

They already do in the form of gas taxes. In fact most of the price of gas is various taxes. Driver's pay so much in fuel tax that they even help subsidize transit through their taxes which is the biggest irony of all.

I'm still waiting for a response to your previous post where I called you on all the BS you posted.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

BTW, while I don't think the argument about the viaducts is a cars versus transit argument, I did want to take this one on.

It might be a true statement, but a simple look around anywhere in the Lower Mainland will show you that car infrastructure is utterly ubiquitous - it is literally everywhere. And transit infrastructure very much is not.

So this should give you a sense of the historical imbalance that was created in the decades prior to the 1990s. Vancouver's growth pattern is a product of the mid-20th century - the car let it expand cheaply and quickly, like many North American cities. My belief is that model has been shown to be a failure, and that the reason Vancouver is so uniquely a nice place to live is that this was recognized early enough to stop it.

No, Vancouver's growth pattern is reminiscent of the North-American grid system popularized during the 19th century. This system just happened to be as convenient for cars as it was for pedestrians and horse-drawn carriage. the town centers are as far apart as they always have been, and whether the land between them filled in or not, they still would need to be interconnected today.


And ignoring cars, how are you supposed to provide localized bus service without roads?

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

I'm still waiting for a response to your previous post where I called you on all the BS you posted.

See the above correspondence between myself, Allen and Metro-One. That should clear things up.

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Yeah, how could anyone think you are opposed to cars?

My beef is less with cars themselves (which I acknowledge to be very useful in moderation - for specific groups of people), but rather with socialized mass car culture. As for transit, not only are many modes self-sustaining or nearly so (ie. skytrain), but the user-pay system ensures that people pay directly for what they use. As to how this might apply in practice to automobile use, I would be interested to see a reduction in the gas tax (which everyone pays, even if only in the form of food and commercial goods distribution), in favor of tolling infrastructure on major roadways, from which industry and commerce would be exempt. In my opinion, this form of taxation/user-payment would have a more constructive effect on the built infrastructure of our communities and cities.

[biketrouble]

Regarding the anti-car thing, it wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of it, but people who know me well would get a real laugh out of that. Certainly a look in my parking spot would dispel any notion that I am anti-car.

Let's just say I have nuanced appreciation of roads

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

But why is it, do you think, that NEFC is the *last* part of False Creek to be built out? Are you really suggesting that the viaducts have not been a disincentive to development here?

The very first post-Expo 86 development occured on the parcel of land sandwiched between the north ends of the Burrard Street Bridge and the Granville Street Bridge. Thus, new development began between what is, in effect, two massive viaducts.

Here is a 1991 photo for your reference: http://www.globalairphotos.com/large...own/1991/054/2

Aesthetically, I do not like viaducts either, but your hypothesis that viaducts are a major disincentive to development, such that the areas around them will be the last areas to be developed, is not supported by the evidence.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

So which of the following do you believe?

1) NEFC planning is only now in the beginning phases partly because the viaducts are a disincentive to development.
2) NEFC planning has not been affected by the presence of the viaducts.
3) NEFC planning would be even more delayed if the viaducts weren't there.

Just so we're clear, I think it would be absurd to believe 3) and pretty silly to believe 2).

It's funny how none of your options is the reason why there isn't any development around the NEFC. Concord Pacific owns the land south of viaducts, plus a block between the viaducts and Abbott and Carrall St, and the City of Vancouver owns the land for the rest of the viaducts.

Why hasn't Concord Pacific developed NEFC? I'll let you answer that.

[biketrouble]

NEFC is the most toxic piece of land, that's the answer you're looking for, right?

I still think it's silly to believe that the viaducts have had no negative effect on development here. Who is to say that the land would not have been given higher priority for cleanup were it more attractive?

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by deasine

Why hasn't Concord Pacific developed NEFC? I'll let you answer that.

Cause the powers that be felt it would be easier to develop closer to already existing development along the peninsula then out in the middle or urban blight.

Now the powers that be dictate that they take on the more challenging development around NEFC. No one said the viaducts would make developments easy, but that doesn't mean they should be torn down. Making things challenging for developers is what's given Vancouver the high ranking position of livability it has today.

[racc]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Reading this thread I have to wonder if the goal of many of those who advocate removal of the viaducts is to punish car users and force transit use rather than encourage transit use by transit expansion and availability.

It is irrelevant what the goals of those who advocate the removal of the viaducts are. What matters is what the results would be. Secondly, the origins of the idea is to increase the amount of developable land and the viability of developable land near the viaduct. If the goal was to "punish car users", any number of other roads in Vancouver would have been much better candidates.

Now, back to what the results would be. The extra 3,000 to 5,000 people that would be living downtown as a result of the removal of the viaducts would mean 3,000 to 5,000 less people living elsewhere in the region. People living downtown are far less likely to drive than people living elsewhere in the region. Even if these people drive to work, they would be likely driving against the peak flow and thus they would not be adding to congestion.

So while drivers would be losing a km or so of roadway, there will be few 3,000 to 5,000 people driving on streets throughout the city and the region which will free up space for those who must drive or chose to drive. Given that the average commute is 5km, the number of lane km's freed up would likely exceed those lost on the viaducts.

Tearing down the viaducts could actually be a net gain for drivers in the region.

[Metro-One]

The funny thing is the eastern edge of the ducts has already been developed, with Spectrum, GM Place and the new towers around International Village, that is already a good 100 to 150m stretch of the ducts fully embedded in the urban fabric with no waste of space or blight. The skate park has been another good development.

There are many structures that can be put under them, an OMC for the new streetcar, a parking garage for GM place and BC Place (deny it all you want, but the two stadiums downtown will always need parking and better it be located in 2 or 3 level parking garages under the ducts then sprawled out as surface lots), night markets could be built (they offer cover from the rain!), parks, etc...

The GM tower is another good example of a proposal made more interesting having the ducts around.

They serve a purpose, and as all the low fruit downtown dries up they will be built around and utilized under, creating a unique district in Vancouver instead of a carbon copy one, which i see some people here want.

Also having them may also encourage commercial and office development alongside them instead of simply adding more condos.

[flight_from_kamakura]

wow, huge discussion. i like the idea of pushing the onramps west of main street and fixing that whole area up.

[Metro-One]

It is irrelevant what the goals of those who advocate the removal of the viaducts are. What matters is what the results would be. Secondly, the origins of the idea is to increase the amount of developable land and the viability of developable land near the viaduct. If the goal was to "punish car users", any number of other roads in Vancouver would have been much better candidates.

Now, back to what the results would be. The extra 3,000 to 5,000 people that would be living downtown as a result of the removal of the viaducts would mean 3,000 to 5,000 less people living elsewhere in the region. People living downtown are far less likely to drive than people living elsewhere in the region. Even if these people drive to work, they would be likely driving against the peak flow and thus they would not be adding to congestion.

So while drivers would be losing a km or so of roadway, there will be few 3,000 to 5,000 people driving on streets throughout the city and the region which will free up space for those who must drive or chose to drive. Given that the average commute is 5km, the number of lane km's freed up would likely exceed those lost on the viaducts.

Tearing down the viaducts could actually be a net gain for drivers in the region.

This is really starting to stretch it now. reverse commuting is not a good solution. Also, who says the land under the ducts have to be more f***ing condos? There are many amenities and facilities needed in a city that take up land that can be built under the ducts for cheaper land costs saving the city, Translink, the parks board and who ever else needs that area money in land purchase costs.

Also, among those theoretical 3000 to 5000 more people many of them will have cars, and they will be adding to the commercial and personal traffic that has now been displaced by the ducts on a reduced road network. This is the only decent East/West route in and out of Downtown, unlike the North South route which has 3 major bridges.

And if the people do disappear from driving downtown, it is likely because the businesses they worked at have re-located to the suburbs.

[racc]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

True enough, but for the last couple decades we've put transit ahead of car-related development.

If you look at was is on the ground, this simply is not true. While there has been an large increase in transit related development, most development in the region, especially that in the valley, has been car-oriented. Even transit related development has been still built around the automobile as witnessed by massive, expensive parking structures in so called transit oriented development. Also, so called transit oriented development still is built with a robust network of roads ensuring that in many cases, it is still faster to drive than use transit.

If you are talking about infrastructure alone, in spite of the large investment in rapid transit, if you add up all the money invested by all levels of government, I expect you would find the investment in roads has still been greater than that in transit. Regardless, it has been no where near enough to make up for the decades of under investment.

[jlousa]

3000-5000 extra people w/o the viaducts?
I've already told you the land lift would be ~$40M, you'd be looking about tops an additional 500units top, so maybe 1000 extra warm bodies.

The viaducts will not be going anywhere anytime soon. On a somewhat related matter, the cov has issued an tender regarding the Grandview viaduct. The one that connects 1st ave to Terminal in case you are wondering. They are considering expanding it if it's possible to include a right turn lane onto Clark.