HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 12:02 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
Reason and Freedom
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 4,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by racc View Post
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.
The above scenario is preposterous. To begin with, it assumes that every one of these 3,000 to 5,000 people worked in the downtown core and were formerly commuters, that employment in the downtown core will remain static, and that these 3,000 to 5,000 formerly-commuting suburbanites will never be replaced by 3,000 to 5,000 new commuting suburbanites.

Last edited by Prometheus; Oct 26, 2009 at 12:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 12:50 AM
biketrouble biketrouble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Mind View Post
No, Vancouver's growth pattern is reminiscent of the North-American grid system popularized during the 19th century.
I think that you are correct if you limit your statement to the City of Vancouver proper - but when it comes to the metro area I think this graph speaks for itself: Vancouver Population Growth (Wikipedia).

So I think it is correct to say that (Metro) Vancouver grew quickly and cheaply using the car.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 12:58 AM
racc racc is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
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.
There is really no excuse in the Internet age to not do just a bit of research before posting. It would really help the debate. True, these people may indeed have cars, but they will likely have fewer per capita and use them far less. In the West End, 39.6% of people walk to work, 24.3% take public transit, 3.2% cycle while only 27.7% drive. Compare this to the region as a whole where 73.1% of people drive to work. Your comment about reverse commuting just doesn't make sense.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...as/westend.pdf

The viaducts aren't the most important routes to downtown. When building Spectrum, they closed one lane on each of the viaducts and no one really even noticed. During the Olympics, both will be closed and I expect, it won't be any big deal.

Don't forget that SkyTrain and the Westcoast Express are pretty decent ways in and out of Downtown from the East.

In addition to providing space for more homes, tearing down the Viaducts will also provide more space for parks and other public amenities. Also tearing down the viaducts would also allow Pacific and Expo Blvds to be merged. This will save a lot of space as there would only two parking lanes instead of four and two sidewalks instead of four. Even more room for parks and homes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 1:02 AM
racc racc is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
The above scenario is preposterous. To begin with, it assumes that every one of these 3,000 to 5,000 people worked in the downtown core and were formerly commuters, that employment in the downtown core will remain static, and that these 3,000 to 5,000 formerly-commuting suburbanites will never be replaced by 3,000 to 5,000 new commuting suburbanites.
Stop splitting hairs. The bottom line is that more people living near downtown means fewer people commuting from the burbs. Who knows what the exact levels will be but it means less traffic and congestion. Even if they do drive, they will be driving shorter distances and thus using less road space and creating less congestion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 1:02 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by biketrouble View Post
I think that you are correct if you limit your statement to the City of Vancouver proper - but when it comes to the metro area I think this graph speaks for itself: Vancouver Population Growth (Wikipedia).

So I think it is correct to say that (Metro) Vancouver grew quickly and cheaply using the car.
It's a correlation yes, and I agree with you, but they are two separate subjects. The growth of the region of Metro Vancouver, mostly exists in the suburbs, and it's the suburbs that have an inadequate public transit network, which has led to an increase in automobiles.

Going back to the Concord developments, both answers are incorrect, though Canadian Mind's answer could be a possibility, but isn't the actual reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by racc View Post
Stop splitting hairs. The bottom line is that more people living near downtown means fewer people commuting from the burbs. Who knows what the exact levels will be but it means less traffic and congestion. Even if they do drive, they will be driving shorter distances and thus using less road space and creating less congestion.
No, that's quite an assumption. Yes, there are less people commuting from the suburbs in relation to commuters travelling in their own region, but that does not make the above statement true.

No one has stated this, but in reality, the viaducts only save you a few minutes of driving than compared to driving down Hastings. I'm surprised I haven't heard that argument yet (or maybe I read everything quickly but was too captivated in responding to other arguments proven not valid). Like I said, my argument is that there are many other factors than just removing the viaducts and to this moment, no one, absolutely no one, has figured out any plans or drew any renderings or visuals that respond to the problems with removing the viaducts. Just saying "let's remove the viaducts" without planning doesn't do anything.

Last edited by deasine; Oct 26, 2009 at 1:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 1:06 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,806
Quote:
There is really no excuse in the Internet age to not do just a bit of research before posting. It would really help the debate. True, these people may indeed have cars, but they will likely have fewer per capita and use them far less. In the West End, 39.6% of people walk to work, 24.3% take public transit, 3.2% cycle while only 27.7% drive. Compare this to the region as a whole where 73.1% of people drive to work. Your comment about reverse commuting just doesn't make sense.
Yes, but it is still more people downtown which will still equal more cars! Also many amenities can be built under the ducts with the ducts in place as I have mentioned in my (and many others) previous posts.

And how many times do we have to tell people such as yourself not everyone's job or daily plan allows them to take transit to commute? NOT EVERYONE HAS A 9 TO 5 OFFICE/SCHOOL SIMPLISTIC COMMUTING LIFE, MANY PEOPLE NEED TO BE IN MANY PLACES N ONE DAY, SOME OF THEM VERY TRIVIAL, AND MANY PEOPLE NEED TO BRING EXTENSIVE EQUIPMENT WITH THEM

These ducts are not the end of the world for livability in downtown Vancouver, seriously!
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 1:16 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is online now
♒︎ Empirically Canadian
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 🍁 Canada
Posts: 11,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by biketrouble View Post
You mean like Pacific Boulevard/Expo Boulevard + Quebec Street do, already?
Everything is connected to everything else eventually, but there is no direct connection between Georgia/Dunsmuir downtown and Terminal Avenue, which is the most direct route to Highway 1. You have to exit the Viaducts, go through a couple lights on Main, and wait to turn left to get on Terminal, this is the sort of thing that takes forever during rush hours. A direct connection to Terminal would have been the most efficient route out of the city, if only it had been planned that way. I'm suprised that no one else has zeroed in on this. A reconfiguration of the viaducts and streets might actually improve this flow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 1:19 AM
racc racc is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
YAnd how many times do we have to tell people such as yourself not everyone's job or daily plan allows them to take transit to commute? NOT EVERYONE HAS A 9 TO 5 OFFICE/SCHOOL SIMPLISTIC COMMUTING LIFE, MANY PEOPLE NEED TO BE IN MANY PLACES N ONE DAY, SOME OF THEM VERY TRIVIAL, AND MANY PEOPLE NEED TO BRING EXTENSIVE EQUIPMENT WITH THEM

These ducts are not the end of the world for livability in downtown Vancouver, seriously!
Please start making sense. Capacity is only an issue at peak hours. Those who commute or travel outside of peak hours have plenty of options to travel around without congestion. For these people, the tearing down of the viaducts will not be much of an issue at all.

Further more, during Canada Line construction, 14 east-west lanes of traffic were closed. 10 at Granville and 4 at Davie. Again, the world did not end and no one really seemed to care.

The tearing down of the viaducts will not be the end of the world for mobility in Vancouver either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 1:21 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,806
Quote:
Please start making sense. Capacity is only an issue at peak hours. Those who commute or travel outside of peak hours have plenty of options to travel around without congestion. For these people, the tearing down of the viaducts will not be much of an issue at all.

Further more, during Canada Line construction, 14 east-west lanes of traffic were closed. 10 at Granville and 4 at Davie. Again, the world did not end and no one really seemed to care.

The tearing down of the viaducts will not be the end of the world for mobility in Vancouver either.
Yes, but it was a huge pan in the ass for many people causing longer then normal delays. And likewise, if the ducts are already in place and only at their mid life then why go through the trouble of tearing them down? If the world will not end without them, then the world will also not end with them!
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 1:21 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
Reason and Freedom
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 4,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by racc View Post
Stop splitting hairs. The bottom line is that more people living near downtown means fewer people commuting from the burbs.
More people living near downtown means fewer people commuting downtown only if you make the following assumptions, every one of which is fanciful:

1) The 3,000 to 5,000 new residents previously worked in the downtown core and were formerly commuters;

2) Employment in the downtown core will remain static; and thus

3) The 3,000 to 5,000 formerly-commuting suburbanites will never be replaced by 3,000 to 5,000 new commuting suburbanites.

Last edited by Prometheus; Oct 26, 2009 at 1:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 1:28 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is online now
♒︎ Empirically Canadian
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 🍁 Canada
Posts: 11,930
It's hard to get any ideas on here because of all the bickering.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 2:39 AM
biketrouble biketrouble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
Going back to the Concord developments, both answers are incorrect, though Canadian Mind's answer could be a possibility, but isn't the actual reason.
I find it amusing that you believe there is one "actual reason", rather than a confluence of factors that have lead to it not being developed yet. It's a pretty simplistic outlook.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 3:19 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
The reason they have not been developed has nothing to do with the viaducts. Concord had an abundance of land and could not possibly develop it all at once. They developed the land that would yield the highest profits first, that would be the land that would be the cheapest to build on and that could fetch the highest dollars (not nefc). Now that all that land has been developed they will develop the land with the lowest yields (nefc). Had Concord not sold International village to Henderson than you could bet that would've been the last parcel developed.
Does anyone here believe that once nefc is built it won't be liveable like the rest of downtown because of the viaducts?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 3:40 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,806
Many of us don't, Biketrouble and a few others will believe that. but then they don't have to move there.

Quote:
I find it amusing that you believe there is one "actual reason", rather than a confluence of factors that have lead to it not being developed yet. It's a pretty simplistic outlook.
On the flip side it is amusing that you believe there is only one "actual factor" (the ducts) that has led to that area not being developed yet.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 3:50 AM
geoff's two cents geoff's two cents is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
Does anyone here believe that once nefc is built it won't be liveable like the rest of downtown because of the viaducts?
I have my doubts, as you know, but Metro-One's examples from the Japanese context suggest that it is at least possible to do something unique. Once built, the NEFC area would benefit greatly from a retail corridor spanning the area between the NEFC waterfront and Abbott/International Village.

Perhaps a quasi-industrial feel a la Yaletown (sorry Metro-One) or Gastown could be cultivated - and safely, provided there was a concentrated law enforcement presence, and provided that businesses in the area were encouraged to be open late (for eyes on the street), that lighting was adequate, that traffic calming measures be used to compensate for the fact that people will be walking and crossing streets in less-than-ideal lighting. The key to neighborhood success here will be, more than anything else, mixed use, and keeping the neighborhood buzzing with activity at all hours.

Biketrouble's comments are certainly relevant here, as the viaducts present a challenge to livability not really faced in any other part of the city. Granville Island would be the closest analog, but the bridge deck there is high enough above ground level to allow plenty of light underneath - and high enough to shield people below from most of the traffic noise. Nor is Granville Island directly adjacent to the DTES. . .

Again, the Gardiner expressway in Toronto is an example of the challenges to livability posed by urban viaducts (walking those tunnels at night is not fun), and that city's lackluster waterfront atmosphere is one casualty of the city's failure to successfully incorporate them. That's not to say, of course, that those challenges are insurmountable. . .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 3:59 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by biketrouble View Post
I find it amusing that you believe there is one "actual reason", rather than a confluence of factors that have lead to it not being developed yet. It's a pretty simplistic outlook.
I find it more amusing that you think the viaducts is the sole reason for why the area hasn't been developed. Rather ironic don't you think? (Just realized Metro-One has said the same thing).

Geoff has pretty much pointed out that the viaducts pose as a challenge to livability, and this is true to a certain extent. But this doesn't make it impossible if it's done the right ways. This is precisely where integration comes in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #257  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 4:06 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,806
Quote:
I have my doubts, as you know, but Metro-One's examples from the Japanese context suggest that it is at least possible to do something unique. Once built, the NEFC area would benefit greatly from a retail corridor spanning the area between the NEFC waterfront and Abbott/International Village.

Perhaps a quasi-industrial feel a la Yaletown (sorry Metro-One) or Gastown could be cultivated - and safely, provided there was a concentrated law enforcement presence, and provided that businesses in the area were encouraged to be open late (for eyes on the street), that lighting was adequate, that traffic calming measures be used to compensate for the fact that people will be walking and crossing streets in less-than-ideal lighting. The key to neighborhood success here will be, more than anything else, mixed use, and keeping the neighborhood buzzing with activity at all hours.

Biketrouble's comments are certainly relevant here, as the viaducts present a challenge to livability not really faced in any other part of the city. Granville Island would be the closest analog, but the bridge deck there is high enough above ground level to allow plenty of light underneath - and high enough to shield people below from most of the traffic noise. Nor is Granville Island directly adjacent to the DTES. . .

Again, the Gardiner expressway in Toronto is an example of the challenges to livability posed by urban viaducts (walking those tunnels at night is not fun), and that city's lackluster waterfront atmosphere is one casualty of the city's failure to successfully incorporate them. That's not to say, of course, that those challenges are insurmountable. . .
Hehe, don't worry, I love Gastown! Also I like the more dense commercial parts of Yaletown (such as Hamilton Street). In fact making a low-rise commercial district with a industrial theme to it would be perfect for under the ducts! (Also adding lots of lighting as the pics I showed in Japan would be a great asset as well). Also the ducts actually have a pleasing design compared to most and the pillars are far and few between (compared to overpasses and other viaducts where they use several pillars at each joint and the pillars are much closer together). Also, with the ducts still in place, I would be 100% supportive for all types of traffic calming measure along the local streets below the ducts, simply because the ducts will give motorists an alternative from the local streets.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #258  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 5:10 AM
biketrouble biketrouble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
I find it more amusing that you think the viaducts is the sole reason for why the area hasn't been developed. Rather ironic don't you think? (Just realized Metro-One has said the same thing).
Sadly, this is the standard of reading comprehension I've become used to around here. If you were paying attention, you'd have worked out that what I believe is that there are a confluence of factors that have lead to NEFC not being developed - because, you know, I used those exact words - and that the viaducts are *one of those factors*.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #259  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 5:18 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,806
So why not focus your attention on the others, and when those are mitigated it will mute the factor of the ducts and then we can have a healthy community without taking them down and without severely reducing the east/west vehicle capacity in and out of the city?
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #260  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 5:20 AM
biketrouble biketrouble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
They developed the land that would yield the highest profits first, that would be the land that would be the cheapest to build on and that could fetch the highest dollars (not nefc).
Well, duh. But you don't suppose that the viaducts might have contributed to the cost to build (because of design constraints) and also the price that might be demanded for completed developments (because apart from Metro-One, people don't like living next to viaducts.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
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 10:06 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.