Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

To paraphrase Marie Antoinette: "Let them take transit" will never fly with the majority of the region's residents and that's just a fact of life.

I disagree with this. I think as years go on, as attitudes change, and as transit becomes more viable, the demographic shift will mean that people will not only grow willing to take transit but to see it as a plus over the automobile.

[Metro-One]

But the city of Vancouver and the greater area is growing fast, so even if the % of people taking transit increases and the % of people driving lowers the actual numbers of people driving will probably still increase, and with more people means more need for commercial vehicles and service vehicles, etc...

I feel i need to post this point again because it is an important one that has been overlooked:

Also don't forget people that the city plans to build a streetcar crossing all the surface roads into Vancouver along the east/west divide and that will run along Pacific Boulevard, Powell and Cordova streets, which are all east/west connecting streets, so essentially all of the east/west streets will be intersected by the street car and nearly half of the east/west connector streets will have the streetcar running down them. This will add further possible congestion to the east/west connections and does it not make sense to keep the viaducts and funnel commercial and cross region traffic onto them to help free up the streets below for the streetcars and local traffic, pedestrians, cyclists, etc...???





This will affect the already restrained east/west connections much more then the more properly built north/south connections. I just feel keeping the ducts in place and utilizing them properly when the street car comes on line will just make things safer for everyone.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by AlexYVR

I'd like to start by saying that I'm not necessarily for the removal of the viaducts. BCPhil, you've got some very good points to make, but I do take umbridge with one and feel that you miss another: civic betterment and the 'opinion-as-fact' fallacy. To approach the 2nd point first:

The 'downtown elite': Because people make different choices in lifestyles does not make them 'elite'. I don't live downtown (though close), but wouldn't mind and am the target demographic for it. I'm 23, I rent, I'm educated but not overly so, I can't afford a car, and it's going to be a long time before I own. I have no problem with this because it allows me to live closer to the city and to the centre of what goes on in my life. I could just as easily argue that you - living out in the suburbs, wanting to be/being landed gentry, owning a vehicle - are much more 'elite' than myself.

When we're at the point where 88,000 people call downtown home - 1 in 6 Vancouverites - I don't think you can call them 'elite' any longer. This isn't a white collar vs. blue collar issue. Many downtowners rent to afford to live there, work double jobs, or live in sunrooms. Simply because their choices are not the same as yours does not make them think they're better, or 'elite'. I wish people could just accept lifestyle as lifestyle and not try and place it in a hierarchy.

The same goes for condos! It's not 'people' that like yards; it's you that likes yards. You are in a category with a large subset of people, yes, but please don't presume to tell me that I like yards or, worse, that I don't believe a condo is property. At 23, I'm in the perfect demographic to live in the city and in downtown. I firmly believe that density is needed and that, to retain a sense of nature, the city needs to invest heavily in shared, public spaces - which it has done. I don't need a yard if the nearest park is a block away and if I have kms and kms of seawall running around my entire city, and this includes when I have children. Just like I don't presume to tell you that you don't want to live in Burquitlam and have a yard and a white picket fence, please don't tell me that I do. The densified lifestyle works very well for many, many people. Condos are as big of sources of investment, equity, and security as houses. You saying that I aspire to own a 'box in the sky' is as ridiculous as me chiding you for not owning the entire block your house sits upon.

To the topic of the viaducts: I hope, eventually, they come down. Eventually. The city will need to invest much more in mass transit before this happens. This isn't to shut people out, or because I believe that downtown is for downtowners; it's because we all have a civic duty to make the occasional harder decision to ensure that the future is an improvement on the present. It’s a simple (if generalized) fact that transit reduces emissions over single occupancy vehicles. It is a simple fact that having each house separated by ½ an acre leads to longer driving distances (more emissions from cars), longer roads (more maintenance needed), increased utility distances (more pipes, wires, maintainance, etc), and so on and so forth. By encouraging people to reduce their automobile travel while simultaneously providing other options for comfortable transit, we will begin to move in that direction. Is it high speed rail into downtown instead of the viaducts? Is it increased bus service or more skytrain lines? That’s going to take years to figure out. It IS true, however, that with the removal of the viaducts, SOV travel will become more time consuming in Vancouver. The cost/benefit equation will shift and it will make more sense for more people to take transit, or to work nearer their homes. I think we can all agree that this is a good thing.

I would never call for the removal of all SOVs – at least not in the next 100 years. People deserve choice. Heavy trucks will always need a way in to the city. There are times when a car is necessary and useful and the right tool for the job, no doubt about it. Some jobs, such as construction and landscaping, will never be transit-appropriate. That doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t have to pay for the privilege of an automobile. BCPhil, just like in your example about transit users that should be happy to pay tax for their car-owning coworkers, those SOV occupants should realize that people who take transit are not putting strain on the roadways every year; they’re not using up excess capacity; and they are reducing smog and emissions in the Lower Mainland, all very real benefits that SOV users can enjoy. I guess what I’m saying (always) is that there’s two sides to the debate.

And finally, for the future:

I would be interested in exploring the possibility of turning the viaducts into a ‘commercial only’ zone – trucking and heavy commercial users being allowed on while residential/commuter/visitor traffic would be shuttled along pacific or through Chinatown. This would preserve the ingress and egress of business to the city which so worries some people on this board while encouraging carpooling and transit options for those who have them available.

You are right. People downtown aren't the cream of the crop, but many of them like to think they are.

I think you might have taken some of what I said out of context of the debate in which it was in. When I referred to "people" liking yards, it was in direct response to why people in America fled the cities for suburban living. In this scenario, people is referring to the majority who left downtown cores. I'm in not saying that all people think like that, just that enough people think like that to have made it happen.

I have no problems with condo living. If people feel like they want to live in a condo, and I have before, then that is perfectly fine. It's their choice. And if you read any of my other posts, especially on this issue, my main argument is free society is about individuals having choice.

I don't think there is anything wrong with density, or living close to work... if that is what you want to do. When I'm single, I love it. I like living in a condo close to work. But if I had a family, with kids, there is no way I would subject them to condo/urban living. But that is my opinion. I'm 100% for the choice, if people want to raise their kids downtown, that's fine by me. I'm not going to go to any rallies to keep them from building schools downtown.

When I refer to people downtown as elite, I'm refering to their self entitlement. Many people downtown, as evident by some posts here, feel they are right, and others are wrong for their choices. They want to destroy choice. That makes them elitist, the fact that they feel they are. It's the fact they feel they've made the correct choice in life, and those, living in the suburbs, have made the wrong choice, and by making this wrong choice are somehow harming society and are a drain on it and should be punished.

How should they be punished? By making their lives overly expensive. By making it hard for them to live with their choices. That's not what I'm for. There already is an associated cost with the choices people make. Living in the suburbs already comes with a commute, by car or transit. Why are we trying to make that commute harder, instead of easier?

Read some of the posts here by some people wanting the viaducts to come down. They talk about the evils of automobiles, the encroachment on nature, the social ills of commuting. They talk about removing the viaducts as a form of manipulation, a manipulation of choice. That kind of thinking is attacking free choice.

I talk about choice. About laissez-faire. We are (or at least try) to be a populist society, not elitist, not pluralist.

If many people benefit from current existence of a piece of infrastructure (like the viaducts), why is it correct to remove them so a smaller subset of people can profit or feel good about themselves?

This isn't a new piece of infrastructure where we have to debate the cost and benefits of building it. It exists. The benefits are tangible and realized by people using it. To remove them is taking away from people, and for what? To give to people who think they right and people using them are wrong.

But I guess you have a point. I could have been using a different term to avoid some confusion. While there are a lot of elite in downtown, and a lot of people like to pretend they are elite, I guess the actual term I should have been using was a snob. I guess someone with a worldview in which their intellect and way of living is superior to those in the suburbs is a snob. I'll get it right next time.

[junius]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

But this depends entirely on the situations and other variables.

Take this hypothetical:

You have a city that is running steady, constant and well. You might have traffic, but under normal conditions it is the same everyday. The situation is constant.

If you remove a major road, and the instantaneous result is that traffic is so bad on adjoining roads that people adapt by taking longer, less busy routes or by taking transit, thus increasing delays and travel times on those modes.

The end result is that thousands of people now take longer to travel. We are talking about an entire city worth of people losing between a few minutes (because of a full bus or busier than used to be traffic light) to an hour (going from a fast drive to slow bus) each. Even if you never used the missing road, your mode will be impacted by an influx of people using your road, cross roads, or your bus. Everywhere will be slower, not by a lot, just by a few minutes. Add that up it is hundreds of hours of lost time. Add to that the dollar and environmental cost of extra fuel burnt by people driving the "long way", more stop and go or by idling in traffic.

The micro view might be no big deal to some, a few minutes here and there, but to others it could be an hour a day or more lost. The macro view is very significant.

Think of what you want to do tonight when you get home, the chores or entertainment. Now when you get home sit still for an hour. That's what some real people will be losing, now multiply it by thousands. That's thousands of parents who will have less time to spend helping their kids with homework, or have less time to cook a healthy meal (so they stop for drive through) or less time to go for a run or play sports.

Losing the Viaduct might add another neighbourhood of condos, townhouses and trendy shops to the downtown for the elite to enjoy (we do need more sidewalks soiled with dog poop don't we?) but the cost is very measurable in the time stolen from the commuting working folk.

While losing the viaducts might not cost any individual more than 10 more minutes in a car (not like an hour losing a bridge would) as a whole, for even just 24,000 individuals, that's 4000 hours of lost time.

I don't see the trade. What do we, as a society in whole, gain from removing the Viaducts? How does it outweigh the loss?

Now I think the viaducts won't be around forever, but change takes time. Removing them to build some condos without other supporting infrastructure in place first for a growing region (explosive growth at times too) will harm us all for a quick buck. With out vastly expanded commuter rail into the valley (north and south of the river) and extended skytrain lines where we don't even picture them being today (Hastings).

Bringing driving time down to the level of transit won't work in switching people from cars to trains. You need to offer better train service first. For example, WCE from Mission is better than driving, until that is a reality EVERYWHERE what makes it right to make life worse, instead of better?

Why are we speaking in hypotheticals? I use the viaducts and they are only really busy during peak hours. I think you are way, way over estimating the impact of their removal.

[junius]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

But the city of Vancouver and the greater area is growing fast, so even if the % of people taking transit increases and the % of people driving lowers the actual numbers of people driving will probably still increase, and with more people means more need for commercial vehicles and service vehicles, etc...

I feel i need to post this point again because it is an important one that has been overlooked:

Also don't forget people that the city plans to build a streetcar crossing all the surface roads into Vancouver along the east/west divide and that will run along Pacific Boulevard, Powell and Cordova streets, which are all east/west connecting streets, so essentially all of the east/west streets will be intersected by the street car and nearly half of the east/west connector streets will have the streetcar running down them. This will add further possible congestion to the east/west connections and does it not make sense to keep the viaducts and funnel commercial and cross region traffic onto them to help free up the streets below for the streetcars and local traffic, pedestrians, cyclists, etc...???





This will affect the already restrained east/west connections much more then the more properly built north/south connections. I just feel keeping the ducts in place and utilizing them properly when the street car comes on line will just make things safer for everyone.

In respect to the bolder area above - this is not necessarily so. Remember that the increase in population downtown has brought a decrease in care trips over the past decade. While this seems counter intuitive it is because other modes of transportation - in particular walking - have replaced car use.

The addition of a street car system will also reduce traffic as more people will ride and walk.

[twoNeurons]

Add some Noise Barriers and the Viaduct area becomes very livable again.

[Metro-One]

In respect to the bolder area above - this is not necessarily so. Remember that the increase in population downtown has brought a decrease in care trips over the past decade. While this seems counter intuitive it is because other modes of transportation - in particular walking - have replaced car use.

The addition of a street car system will also reduce traffic as more people will ride and walk.

So you want all of the bikes, trams, pedestrians, local traffic and cross regional/commercial traffic all sharing the small east/west road network in the area?

the streetcar, if built as shown, will likely take away 4 traffic east/west lanes off of the surface streets, never mind the impact of stations and more pedestrians (don't get me wrong, the streetcar and more pedestrians is a good thing at surface level). Then add in all of the eventual traffic calming measure put in place in the area plus new bike lanes and other possible developments (which are also good at surface level), the fact that the tram will also be crossing the remaining east/west streets with hopefully frequent trains, is it not a good idea to keep the ducts to manage all of the cross regional traffic, commercial and shipping vehicles with a growing population? Not to mention emergency vehicles can use them to land at the base of a possible new hospital on Main and Prior directly from downtown! Not to mention that most of the few streets left that are not touched by the streetcar are far from major arteries. Also, the streetcar is going to be local service, so it is going to have very little impact on vehicles originating or people traveling to area far from its reach, and also, don't forget transit is not an option for everyone!

So essentially to recap, it looks as if in the near future we could be loosing up to 4 lanes (or more) east/west for the streetcar (along pacific Boulevard, Powel and Cordova, a possibly loss of lanes along Quebec/Columbia street, more traffic calming and bike lanes and you people want to take away a further 6 lanes of traffic by taking down the ducts?

Am I the only one here who sees why it would be wise to keep the ducts and funnel as much vehicle traffic as possible into them to keep the streets below as traffic free as possible for the new trams, bike lanes, pedestrians living there, etc...?

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

But I guess you have a point. I could have been using a different term to avoid some confusion. While there are a lot of elite in downtown, and a lot of people like to pretend they are elite, I guess the actual term I should have been using was a snob. I guess someone with a worldview in which their intellect and way of living is superior to those in the suburbs is a snob. I'll get it right next time.

Thanks again for the invite, BCPhil. The bold was a nice touch. I could argue you to death on any number of things, but that's not a conversation many on this forum would find terribly interesting. This resort to name-calling, I think, demonstrates just how out of place my proselytizing on behalf of cars/environmental impact was and, while I don't take anything back (far from it, ladies and gentlemen), I don't think this is the right forum to discuss those issues. Clearly, it's best to focus our attention on issues about which there is at least a degree of consensus (ie. skyscrapers=good), rather than get caught up with politically polarized tangents that do more harm than good.

One day, perhaps, I'll start my own "sustainable cities" web forum with all the bells and whistles, including a comment peer-review system such as that seen here: http://raisethehammer.org/index.asp

As for the viaducts, I hope to have time to take a stroll down there this weekend. Weather-permitting, it would be fantastic to have some pictures of the area underneath in order to conceptualize what planners are up against.

[Metro-One]

While the area around the viaducts may seem slow in revitalization (due to the break neck speed of Vancouver development of late) there actually already have been massive positive changes and integration in that area over the last 25 years.

Here are some pics from the early 1980s. Pay particualr attention to the west end of them where most of the transformation so far has taken place.



Also note all of the other wasteland present in Vancouver closer to the core (and further from East Hastings)




And the same area today:







And now with most of the cheaper plots developed, and downtown running out of space, I am sure we will see the remaining areas around the ducts that are primarily empty be developed at a much faster rate. (Look how fast spectrum and the International Village developments went up).

All photos are from here:

http://www.globalairphotos.com/index.html

[Phil McAvity]

I really don't think those noise barriers would help much because what people would gain in quiet they would lose in the great view of the city driving on the viaducts offer. What's more, everyone i've ever talked to who lives in high traffic areas adjusts to the sound of traffic very quickly. Why would someone move downtown if they hate the sound of traffic?

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Here are some pics from the early 1980s. Pay particualr attention to the west end of them where most of the transformation so far has taken place.

I'm pretty sure you were talking about Yaletown rather than the West End since the West End hasn't changed that much since the 1980's. Yaletown on the other hand.....

[junius]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

So you want all of the bikes, trams, pedestrians, local traffic and cross regional/commercial traffic all sharing the small east/west road network in the area?

the streetcar, if built as shown, will likely take away 4 traffic east/west lanes off of the surface streets, never mind the impact of stations and more pedestrians (don't get me wrong, the streetcar and more pedestrians is a good thing at surface level). Then add in all of the eventual traffic calming measure put in place in the area plus new bike lanes and other possible developments (which are also good at surface level), the fact that the tram will also be crossing the remaining east/west streets with hopefully frequent trains, is it not a good idea to keep the ducts to manage all of the cross regional traffic, commercial and shipping vehicles with a growing population? Not to mention emergency vehicles can use them to land at the base of a possible new hospital on Main and Prior directly from downtown! Not to mention that most of the few streets left that are not touched by the streetcar are far from major arteries. Also, the streetcar is going to be local service, so it is going to have very little impact on vehicles originating or people traveling to area far from its reach, and also, don't forget transit is not an option for everyone!

So essentially to recap, it looks as if in the near future we could be loosing up to 4 lanes (or more) east/west for the streetcar (along pacific Boulevard, Powel and Cordova, a possibly loss of lanes along Quebec/Columbia street, more traffic calming and bike lanes and you people want to take away a further 6 lanes of traffic by taking down the ducts?

Am I the only one here who sees why it would be wise to keep the ducts and funnel as much vehicle traffic as possible into them to keep the streets below as traffic free as possible for the new trams, bike lanes, pedestrians living there, etc...?

You are very assumptive about what I believe. My point was very specific and it was that adding population downtown will not increase car trips.

[Metro-One]

Fair enough, although the post really wasn't directed towards you, more or less just a general post to all, it is just easier to start a post that way, hehe.

I'm pretty sure you were talking about Yaletown rather than the West End since the West End hasn't changed that much since the 1980's. Yaletown on the other hand.....

Notice I said the west end of them, them being the key word, when the entire topic is about the viaducts the west end of them means the west end of the viaducts.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

Thanks again for the invite, BCPhil. The bold was a nice touch. I could argue you to death on any number of things, but that's not a conversation many on this forum would find terribly interesting. This resort to name-calling, I think, demonstrates just how out of place my proselytizing on behalf of cars/environmental impact was and, while I don't take anything back (far from it, ladies and gentlemen), I don't think this is the right forum to discuss those issues. Clearly, it's best to focus our attention on issues about which there is at least a degree of consensus (ie. skyscrapers=good), rather than get caught up with politically polarized tangents that do more harm than good.

One day, perhaps, I'll start my own "sustainable cities" web forum with all the bells and whistles, including a comment peer-review system such as that seen here: http://raisethehammer.org/index.asp

As for the viaducts, I hope to have time to take a stroll down there this weekend. Weather-permitting, it would be fantastic to have some pictures of the area underneath in order to conceptualize what planners are up against.

I wasn't name calling. Snob is an valid term in the study of philosophy and political science.

Originally Posted by Source: Wiki

A snob is someone who adopts the worldview of snobbery — that some people are inherently inferior to him or her for any one of a variety of reasons, including real or supposed intellect, wealth, education, ancestry, etc. Often, the form of snobbery reflects the snob's personal attributes.

If a person feels that a method of living, like living in the suburbs and commuting, is inferior to high density living and walking to work (mainly because that person does it themselves, or aspires to do it), and as a result they are condescending towards others, that person is a snob. It's not an insult; it's a label.

I don't think your lifestyle is wrong or improper or invalid. I don't think condo living is evil or stupid. I don't think people who own condos downtown are lower on the pecking order than those with property and I don't think people without cars should be crushed under my jackboot. It's just not my choice right now to live downtown, for both personal, situational and financial causes.

However you seem to think that owning property and driving is harmful, and think lower of me, and others that drive, because of it. And you seem to think people who do make that choice should be punished for not being as "sustainable" as yourself. You wish to make life harder for those who do not share your values and worldview.

See, I'm arguing that the viaducts provide choice and convenience for people. I'm arguing that the majority's choice gets precedence. You are arguing that your personal belief that the automobile is harmful is superior to my belief. That's a snob.

Other people, like junius, bring up relevant facts and opinions. junius believes the viaducts aren't heavily used and removing them won't have a big impact. He's not debating my philosophy with his statement, or debating people don't have free will with his statement.

He stated his point. I might not agree with it, but we are both on the same level: he thinks no big deal, I do. That is the actual debate. Are they useful? Not: do they contribute to the supposed ills of society you believe in.

See, You think it might have a huge impact removing them, and that that is good, because you don't agree with the lives the people using the viaduct have, so good riddance to them. You want to force people to do something different to reaffirm your belief that the environment is paramount compared to the life styles of people.

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I wasn't name calling. Snob is an valid term in the study of philosophy and political science.



If a person feels that a method of living, like living in the suburbs and commuting, is inferior to high density living and walking to work (mainly because that person does it themselves, or aspires to do it), and as a result they are condescending towards others, that person is a snob. It's not an insult; it's a label.

I don't think your lifestyle is wrong or improper or invalid. I don't think condo living is evil or stupid. I don't think people who own condos downtown are lower on the pecking order than those with property and I don't think people without cars should be crushed under my jackboot. It's just not my choice right now to live downtown, for both personal, situational and financial causes.

However you seem to think that owning property and driving is harmful, and think lower of me, and others that drive, because of it. And you seem to think people who do make that choice should be punished for not being as "sustainable" as yourself. You wish to make life harder for those who do not share your values and worldview.

See, I'm arguing that the viaducts provide choice and convenience for people. I'm arguing that the majority's choice gets precedence. You are arguing that your personal belief that the automobile is harmful is superior to my belief. That's a snob.

Other people, like junius, bring up relevant facts and opinions. junius believes the viaducts aren't heavily used and removing them won't have a big impact. He's not debating my philosophy with his statement, or debating people don't have free will with his statement.

He stated his point. I might not agree with it, but we are both on the same level: he thinks no big deal, I do. That is the actual debate. Are they useful? Not: do they contribute to the supposed ills of society you believe in.

See, You think it might have a huge impact removing them, and that that is good, because you don't agree with the lives the people using the viaduct have, so good riddance to them. You want to force people to do something different to reaffirm your belief that the environment is paramount compared to the life styles of people.

BCPhil, please stop this. I like to think you and I have better things to do than banter back and forth, on and on. It's pointless: this is not the right forum for that discussion. Moreover, I'd suggest that any attempt to engage two people with such mutually incompatible views is doomed to failure. It's like watching CNN Crossfire - or Jerry Springer. . . That's not the type of company I'd like to be associated with.

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I'd just like to say that I think BC Place looks awesome without the roof. Obviously that isn't something that could ever happen with our climate, but still, it looks good.

With regards to the viaducts, this thread has gone downhill. We are bickering and yelling at each other and hardly proposing anything at all. Here is my proposal. Let the NEFC/Crosstown area develop by with the viaducts in place, and see what the result is. We can always rip the viaducts down in the future. Chances are if we took them down now (and by now I mean in the relative future, before the area has had time to develop) we would NEVER be able to put them back.

The area around International Village has only just seen the completion of Espana and Firenze which are what, 6 towers combined? Let the people move in and the neighbourhood grow. Almost all the retail space is empty down there, but it won't stay like that over the next couple years. We are getting we ahead of ourselves here. Let the plans for the area play out as they have been envisioned and worry about any changes to the viaducts later.

[p78hub]

Exactly. And simply tearing down infrastructure and cramming more people in the new space isn't going to help traffic, especially with our already crowded streets. If people want the viaducts torn down so much, I say just wait for an earthquake. The big one is supposed to happen in the near future, anyway.

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Add some Noise Barriers and the Viaduct area becomes very livable again.

Yeah, that's a fantastic idea. HK has tons of those with highways esp in the Kowloon area. Even one elevated section of the MTR (Tsuen Wan Line) between Kwai Hing and Kwai Fong has some sort of noise barriers as it snakes through a residential area (Actually it's completely enclosed with a concrete covering). Perhaps, something similar can also be done with our Skytrain lines in the future if necessary. I wonder how much money it takes to install them.

[kylemacmac]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

...I was simply calling bullshit on another poster's comments about Montreal's (supposed) freeway system. Paying attention helps.

Hi Phil. And everyone else. This is a bit off track, but kinda relevant to the discussion of the Viaducts.

Like many major cities in the 50s and 60s Montreal built major freeways leading directly into downtown. What was finally built was a semi-complete system of freeways, so that one can enter the downtown core from 2 sides directly on freeways, (West and South), but from the North and East vehicles have to travel over surface streets to get to downtown from the freeways in those corners of the city, like Vancouver, local pressure in residential areas of the Plateau and East End stopped the construction of freeways.

The major theme of the local civic election in Montreal right now is transport, and there are push and pull forces going on, with some mayoral candidates calling for the completion of the autoroute network by connecting hwy 720 to hwy 25 in the east, (The Notre Dame boulevard/freeway proposal) while other candidates are very opposed to this plan, some calling for the drastic removal of most of these downtown autoroutes, and transforming one of them into an urban boulevard similar to Pacific BLVD, and a reduction of vehicular capacity on the downtown tunnel with reserved lanes for buses and trams. Just to the West of downtown connecting the 15/20/720 hwys together is the Turcot interchange which handles hundreds almost 300 000 vehicles per day. This interchange is in horrendous condition (chunks of concrete fall from it regularly, and they've given up trying to patch the concrete, and just bolt chain link fences to the structure to avoid the larger chunks falling onto the roadway...like the Sea-to-Sky) Unsurprisingly, the province is trying to fast-track it's replacement. (Which will cost upwards of $1.5 billion) Obviously something has to be done kinda quickly, and they can't exactly remove this interchange as it's the only North-South route from a major manufacturing area to the South of the city, but there's a massive public movement going on to reduce the capacity of freeways and bring some sense back to the city. Meanwhile, extremely corrupt hwy maintenance rackets want to keep the status quo and are paying off everyone in sight to keep the freeways in place. I'm not making this up, and it's not a conspiracy, local politicians are resigning left right and centre over it. The situation is messy and doesn't look like it will end anytime soon.

This is the kind of crap Vancouver would be dealing with if we'd built the complete downtown freeway plan back in the 50s and 60s.

The fact that we don't have an ingrained freeway culture or infrastructure makes it easier to make changes. Compared to what other cities are dealing with, the viaducts are kind of a joke, and keeping them or altering/removing them really wouldn't make much of a difference. I personally think that without the connecting Grandview cut hwy to Hwy 1, the viaducts are a silly 30 second freeway over very central potentially-useful urban land, which the redevelopment of could maybe help improve the absolute worst urban area of Canada. (the DTES) The viaducts don't really serve a purpose beyond moving cars 2kms in 90 seconds, which if changed to 120 seconds, or even 180 seconds, would it be that much of a deal, especially if downtown was improved? (BCPhil...if it takes each and every viaduct user 2 minutes longer to commute, who says they won't want to move 2 minutes closer, on average, or push for other transportation improvements?) The viaducts will be relatively painless to alter/enhance/remove, and why wouldn't we want to at least try to make a positive change in a horrible part of the city, which also happens to be a international sore spot, in our desperately-wanting-to-be-internationally-famous-city?

I for one vote for redevelopment to the area East of Downtown, around the viadcuts, with mixed use neighborhoods, and yes, cars too! But just not moving so fast...and not so in the air.

[Zassk]

^ But would removing the viaducts really change the travel time from 30 seconds to 180 seconds? I have the impression that the change will be from 30 seconds to something more like 20 minutes due to congestion (when this proposal is combined with the streetcar plan)... unless you propose to add new ground-level roads to replace the viaducts and streetcar right-of-way.

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by Zassk

^ But would removing the viaducts really change the travel time from 30 seconds to 180 seconds? I have the impression that the change will be from 30 seconds to something more like 20 minutes due to congestion (when this proposal is combined with the streetcar plan)... unless you propose to add new ground-level roads to replace the viaducts and streetcar right-of-way.

It doesn't take 20 minutes to get from one side of downtown to the other. I mean, it does in rush hour, but you get the gist. 4 blocks will not make 20 minutes of difference especially when there's Pacific Blvd that's 6 lanes as well as all the redundant lighted lanes underneath.