Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[WBC]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

No that is planning. And world class planning that is being replicated around the globe.

People who live downtown must understand that they chose to live in a urban environment. I haven't heard of any real NIMBYism come from downtowners. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Really, you have not heard of them? Why does then SkyTrain slowdown on the stretch around City Gates? You haven't heard of people complaining about Indy Car? Have you not heard about people saying that the Downtown streetcar will run through Coal Harbor over their dead bodies? How about people organizing not to allow clubs on Denman? To name just a few.

Originally Posted by paradigm4

The office buildings are not being eroded. We have lots of jobs, residential is just picking up to create a balance. There's no doubt that we must continue to ensure that office is being developed and that's what the city is doing. But trends like these, by and large, occur due to the economy.

Balance? What balance? Go count how many commercial buildings have been converted to condos and how many smaller ones have been torn down to make place for more condos. Also note that having a few floors of live-in office space is not the same as having AAA office buildings. And residents of Vancouver will be in for a rude awakening when their taxes keep going up as a price of eroded commercial and industrial tax base.

Originally Posted by paradigm4

If you don't like the way the region's residents chose to grow 30 years ago, then perhaps you'd fit in better in a different city.

Well perhaps you should put those plans to a binding referendum and give finally people some choice?

Originally Posted by paradigm4

It's not mythical, it exists. And it is one of the world's best examples of a sustainable city. We cannot continue to use cars as our main mode of transport. That doesn't mean they don't have a role, because they do. But we should not build our cities around them.

It's something that New York, Paris, London, and many cities round the world have learnt from Copenhagen and they are now quickly adopting many of its best practices. Why Vancouver shouldn't do the same is beyond me.

Cycling is one of the best modes of transport. It's low impact exercise, has zero carbon emissions, and is more efficient than walking.

Of course nobody is going to bike from Burnaby to North Van, but for 1-3k trips, the trips that most in the region take, it does make sense. We just need to modify our infrastructure to make it a safer, and smarter option than driving.

Riding a bike does not mean you are poor.

Riding bike means you have plenty of time.

I acknowledged that it exists. You have not acknowledged that it does not fit our political or economic environment. It's a welfare state.

And for the record I live in Metrotown and take SkyTrain to work every day. So I am not arguing from a point of a car driver. I am arguing for giving people a choice and stopping ideological BS. It costs me $100 to commute downtown by Transit. It costs me $500-$700 a month to commute by car (insurance, gas, parking, car maintenance, amortized car purchase). There is a choice there and people should have that choice.

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by deasine

Tolling the viaducts is an incredibly stupid idea.

Deasine, for a mod, your choice of language lacks moderation.

Originally Posted by deasine

If you toll the viaducts, which will never happen, you should toll every corridor entering into downtown (i.e. London Congestion Charge).

This is more along the lines of what I was thinking. If London can do it, there's no reason Vancouver can't - or, one day, won't (perhaps long after I'm gone). Given the peninsular character of downtown, and the relatively few number of arterial routes connecting to the CBD, Vancouver's congestion charge would be arguably easier to implement. I would be interested in knowing whether London's tolling infrastructure has paid for itself or not. If it is, indeed, a net revenue generator, perhaps it's not "an incredibly stupid idea" after all.

[gillty]

wow that grandview hwy interchange is cool, but at the same time im glad they never built it.

[Stingray2004]

As with most posters, I fully support further residential densification within the City of Vancouver as well as all other regional downtown centres. I also fully support all of the Skytrain streetcar/lrt/rapid bus initiatives.

Currently ~14% of Metro Vancouver residents utilize transit and I hope that grows to 20%+.

I also support a balanced regional transportation mode approach and frankly Metro Vancouver has a terrible regional highway network in that regard, resulting in alot of road rage these days. Too much frustration with the relatively poor transit/highway infrastructure.

After a business luncheon in downtown Vancouver today, I travelled over to the City of Vancouver Archives near the Planetarium to gather the pics in my previous post and spent around 1/2 hour there.

Very interesting stuff indeed in terms of the documents that I came across. The same transit/highway issues being discussed herein were also discussed/written by Vancouver citizens ~39 years ago!

The then head of the Chinese Strathcona Resident's Association(?) in 1971 requested the City of Vancouver to build the Grandview Cut freeway to remove regional thru traffic from Union/Prior Streets in order to keep them livable.

'Express Bus' service to the 'burbs was also to be part of the Grandview Cut freeway until rapid transit was constructed eastward. Others wrote the City to stop the Granville Cut freeway and have rapid transit built forthwith along Hastings Street eastward. Déjà vu!

Over the past 40 years, the more things change.... the more things seemingly remain the same.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

Deasine, for a mod, your choice of language lacks moderation.

A moderator can still participate in heated discussions until discussions are out of hand. Generally, car vs. transit vs. bike discussions go quite out of hand, but surprisingly, the discussion here is quite controlled.

Whether or not you agree, I'm stating a point and the fact of the matter is it's stupid, from my position, and I've elaborated on that already. If I stated a point without justification, then that's a different story.

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

This is more along the lines of what I was thinking. If London can do it, there's no reason Vancouver can't - or, one day, won't (perhaps long after I'm gone). Given the peninsular character of downtown, and the relatively few number of arterial routes connecting to the CBD, Vancouver's congestion charge would be arguably easier to implement. I would be interested in knowing whether London's tolling infrastructure has paid for itself or not. If it is, indeed, a net revenue generator, perhaps it's not "an incredibly stupid idea" after all.

You've already misinterpreted my point. I was referring the term stupid in context of tolling just the viaducts. This doesn't mean I'm saying it's stupid to toll every road entering the city core. Read it carefully.

For the record though, Vancouver's congestion is really nothing compared to London, Los Angeles, even Seattle for that matter. Given with the number of transit options we have today, I would be against having a congestion charge similar to that of London. Even if we build out the Expo line past Hastings, the number of rapid, reliable, and clean transit options entering downtown is nothing compared to London.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by deasine

A moderator can still participate in heated discussions until discussions are out of hand. Generally, car vs. transit vs. bike discussions go quite out of hand, but surprisingly, the discussion here is quite controlled.

Whether or not you agree, I'm stating a point and the fact of the matter is it's stupid, from my position, and I've elaborated on that already. If I stated a point without justification, then that's a different story.



You've already misinterpreted my point. I was referring the term stupid in context of tolling just the viaducts. This doesn't mean I'm saying it's stupid to toll every road entering the city core. Read it carefully.

For the record though, Vancouver's congestion is really nothing compared to London, Los Angeles, even Seattle for that matter. Given with the number of transit options we have today, I would be against having a congestion charge similar to that of London. Even if we build out the Expo line past Hastings, the number of rapid, reliable, and clean transit options entering downtown is nothing compared to London.

London's metropolitan area has more than 4x the population though, and is not nearly as geographically-constrained.

Would removing the viaducts create a transportation mess though? They are orphans in the transportation network, and making a free-flow connection to Highway 1 is virtually impossible. Even if such was deemed a necessity (and politically possible, which it most certainly isn't), the only realistic route would be a tunnel to Grandview/Clark, into the SkyTrain ROW and then elevating above Grandview Highway.

[jlousa]

Just to clarify as Deasine has already pointed out. The moderators are regular forums members first and foremost. We have our opinions and are free to post them just like anyone else. When there is a need for moderation we stop being a regular user and we become a moderator. If there is a problem involving one of the moderators then one of the other mods steps in.

Just want to clarify that there is not much land lift by removing the viaducts. The amount gained by removing them would not come close to paying for their removal and building another method of continuing georgia and dunsmir. There is already a fair amount of density available under the viaducts that is begging to be developed. Heck even a mutlilevel parkade that frees up surface lots nearby would be an improvement.

[SpongeG]

driving downtown today was painful - hastings - traffic didn't even move for a good 15 minutes - had i known how bad it was i would have used the viaduct

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Would removing the viaducts create a transportation mess though? They are orphans in the transportation network, and making a free-flow connection to Highway 1 is virtually impossible. Even if such was deemed a necessity (and politically possible, which it most certainly isn't), the only realistic route would be a tunnel to Grandview/Clark, into the SkyTrain ROW and then elevating above Grandview Highway.

Any free-flow highway eastward could not possibly happen for at least another 20 - 30 years considering the current City of Vancouver policy of 'cars last' on the totem pole. And if it will happen, it would likely be expensive tunnelling for at least one directional along the same rough alignment.

Vancouver N/S is well served by six-lane arterial Granville/Oak/Cambie/ and Knight Streets. Vancouver E/W is ill served by the 4-lane Hastings/1st/ and 12th Ave. corridors where considerable regional thru traffic now is a constant all-day long affair. The old traditional suburb to downtown 9 - 5 commute is from days long gone.

As with the non-commute traffic pressure resulting in an 8-lane Pitt River Bridge and a 10-lane Port Mann Bridge, those same traffic pressures in East Van will probably become a reality in another 20 - 30 years when politicians will perhaps awake to East Van residential frustration.

Another 1 million people residing in the region will also put further pressure on both transit as well as highway infrastructure.

Unlike other metro regions, population growth in Metro Vancouver will substantially continue eastward.

[racc]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Just want to clarify that there is not much land lift by removing the viaducts. The amount gained by removing them would not come close to paying for their removal and building another method of continuing georgia and dunsmir. There is already a fair amount of density available under the viaducts that is begging to be developed. Heck even a mutlilevel parkade that frees up surface lots nearby would be an improvement.

Actually there is a huge amount of land lift. In addition to freeing up developable land, removing them would greatly enhance the view from the first 3 or 4 stories of the buildings. That would probably translate into $200,000 to $300,000 per unit.

As far as the cost of developing new connections, it would cost no more than the costly attempts outlined by deasine to better integrate the viaducts. Covering roads and tracks with concrete to create parks is really expensive. Walkways up to the viaducts aren't cheap either. The city would also save a lot of money on the maintenance of the viaducts. I expect they will reach the end of their design life sooner or later.

[racc]

Originally Posted by WBC

Riding bike means you have plenty of time.

I acknowledged that it exists. You have not acknowledged that it does not fit our political or economic environment. It's a welfare state.

And for the record I live in Metrotown and take SkyTrain to work every day. So I am not arguing from a point of a car driver. I am arguing for giving people a choice and stopping ideological BS. It costs me $100 to commute downtown by Transit. It costs me $500-$700 a month to commute by car (insurance, gas, parking, car maintenance, amortized car purchase). There is a choice there and people should have that choice.

Talk about ideological BS. Cycling is the fastest way to get around for trips under 5km and about half the trips in the region are under 5km. Denmark has very high levels of cycling and has one of the healthiest economies in the world. Detroit, the heart of the automobile has one of the worst.

Tearing down the Viaducts doesn't mean that people can't choose to drive. They still can. It just may take a bit longer. People also have the right to be able to chose to live close to downtown without suffering from the noise and pollution of the traffic on an elevated highway.

I find drivers don't often consider the rights of others that are impacted by their choice to drive.

[SpongeG]

um people live downtown with cars - what 90,000 or so? how many have cars? lets 30%? thats what about 28,000 cars? and they need to get out of town just as much as people need to get downtown - the viaduct is needed just as much to get out as it is needed to get in

I only go downtown at night now cause daytime drives me crazy - its horrible

anyway we can't eliminate cars - especially in Vancouver which is largely a service based economy which needs vehicles to get around for the most part - there needs to be some more thought into how to fix the problem instead of pretending we can get rid of it by ignoring it as seems the city is doing now - the current mayor is a bike nut and a millionaire - must be nice to be him

[deasine]

Originally Posted by racc

Actually there is a huge amount of land lift. In addition to freeing up developable land, removing them would greatly enhance the view from the first 3 or 4 stories of the buildings. That would probably translate into $200,000 to $300,000 per unit.

You won't generate any money from existing buildings, unless you are considering the amount of tax funds generated through purchases of those apartments. That number wouldn't be significant.

Removing the viaducts means there needs to be an investment of some sorts into Union St. and Prior St. as a result of increasing traffic. The cars have to go somewhere. This will also lead to more traffic going on Expo and Pacific Blvd. Expo Blvd and Union St. at its current state isn't the safest road to ride your bike and an increase in traffic will make this worst.

Also, everyone here has simply stated "remove the viaduct" with no plan or diagram whatsoever. How do you remove it? From where? Spectrum is already fully integrated into the viaduct and the residents there wouldn't be happy if you remove their direct access onto Dunsmir and Georgia viaduct. GM Place is already integrated into the viaduct. That means the portion of the viaducts from Beatty and Abbott cannot be removed. It requires quite a distance to lower the viaduct onto street level. What about the SkyTrain guideway? It goes underneath the viaduct. This means you are going to have to either raise the SkyTrain guideway or tunnel the SkyTrain. There are so many factors involved that no one considers. Removing the traffic without redirecting Georgia St in some way will not work: Georgia is a major artery in downtown.

That brings me to another point about the congestion charge idea: many commuters to West Vancouver over the Lion Gates Bridge don't actually want to go into downtown, but have no choice to go through the city core because of their limited route choices.

Originally Posted by racc

As far as the cost of developing new connections, it would cost no more than the costly attempts outlined by deasine to better integrate the viaducts. Covering roads and tracks with concrete to create parks is really expensive. Walkways up to the viaducts aren't cheap either. The city would also save a lot of money on the maintenance of the viaducts. I expect they will reach the end of their design life sooner or later.

My suggestion was more of an extreme way of integrating the viaducts into the urban fabric. However, I did mention that the CoV could and should be negotiating with developers, such as Concord Pacific, so that much of this can be paid for. I'm not saying all of it should be paid by the developer, but this would be a public/private partnership in another form.

[WBC]

Originally Posted by racc

Talk about ideological BS. Cycling is the fastest way to get around for trips under 5km and about half the trips in the region are under 5km. Denmark has very high levels of cycling and has one of the healthiest economies in the world. Detroit, the heart of the automobile has one of the worst.

Tearing down the Viaducts doesn't mean that people can't choose to drive. They still can. It just may take a bit longer. People also have the right to be able to chose to live close to downtown without suffering from the noise and pollution of the traffic on an elevated highway.

I find drivers don't often consider the rights of others that are impacted by their choice to drive.

Ah the great state of Denmark has made a return. Healthiest economy? It's a WELFARE state. 60% of people work for the government or are subsidized by it! You may as well be talking about communist China from the 70s and 80s. Why don't you actually talk to somebody who has lived in Scandinavia and ask them why are they coming here and not the other way around?

Yes, if you are willing to sit 8 hours in the office stinking up the joint then it is absolutely faster. You are of course forgetting about showering, disassembling the bike to guard it from theft, etc..Frankly, I find that nothing can beat the SkyTrain/walking combo in terms of both speed and convenience (provided you are close).

And this discussion actually continues to point out that some group of people like you see turning downtown into residential area. Which is fine, as I said in my previous posts all you will accomplish is that the business is going to move (as it always does) where it is cheaper, easier to access and is just less hustle. So gradually you will have a condo heaven with limited road access whose residents are going to commute to their jobs in Burnaby or Richmond. What is that going to accomplish?

[ozonemania]

I'm of the opinion that the viaducts serve the downtown core pretty well, in its current configuration and capacity. It isn't really a high-capacity thoroughfare anyway. It serves commercial services well, it provides similar capacity to southbound-outbound routes exiting the downtown, and it also in my mind is useful as a pressure valve for congestion.

I'm all for more transportation options. Be it private or public transportation, this is one option -- which shouldn't necessarily preclude or be priority over public transit options -- that run east-west. Removing the viaducts is removing an option. Having pedestrian, bike, bus, subway, train, and finally car options along this corridor is a good thing.

The viaducts right now don't really integrate at the street level with the city that well, however. But that is not really a fault as much as it that until now there was no demand for land use in this part of town. As downtown slowly spreads eastward, the demand is now being seen. As people have mentioned previously, they can be successfully integrated with good design. It would be nice to see some three-dimensional urbanism here, I think it could be potentially very cool.

[trofirhen]

Suspend reality for a moment, and imagine that a motion has been passed to imminently tear down the Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaducts. Got that?

OK. Now, what are you going to replace them with, if anything?
-Are you NOT going to replace them at all?
-Are you going to build some other type of road system in their place?
-Are you going to replace them with transit instead?

I'd like to read and look at some people's ideas of what COULD? SHOULD? or MIGHT be done:

..... a sort of "VIADUCT-REPLACEMENT FANTASY" thing .....

We have experts of all sorts here on this forum. I'm just an observer. C'mon.
Show me - and any other curious parties - your ideas. Really.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO, AND HOW WOULD YOU DO IT, IN THE CASE OF DESTROYING AND/ OR REPLACING THE VIADUCTS ??? Go to it.

[biketrouble]

Unless you weigh 300lbs, a 5km bike ride will not have you "stinking up the joint", and there is absolutely no need to shower.

The public sector makes up 28% of total employment in Denmark (Wikipedia). The figure for Canada is 20% (Statscan.)

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Why did they change the name from 401 to 1?

401 sounds better,

Also, this really is the best freeway proposal they ever did come up with for Vancouver. The Grandview Cut portion is really cool with the train line in the middle. The rest for the Vancouver freeway designs really were insanely horrible and destructive, but this one could have worked.

But I will be more then happy if they just make those proposed over passes over the railway, for they will really compliment the ducts traffic flow. (The Georgia duct onto Prior is the only way I leave downtown, when i drive, which I have to sometimes. I would not even think about using Hastings, that street is a nightmare)

401 was engineering speak. The 4" represents the number of lanes and the "1" is the number of the highway. So a 4-laned highway one was code named "401".

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by lightrail

401 was engineering speak. The 4" represents the number of lanes and the "1" is the number of the highway. So a 4-laned highway one was code named "401".

Is that for sure? 401 is the number for the Trans-Canada Highway. In Toronto, the 401 "The Macdonald-Cartier Freeway," has 16 lanes. Quite a phenomenon. It's also the 401 in Montreal, where it's called "Boulevard des Laurentides," (and has 16 lanes there, too.)

I thought the WAC Bennett government renamed it "Highway 1" in the B.C. portion, because it was the most important highway in the province and they wanted to give it a "B.C." flavour, which they did, by making it "provincial" in character, instead of trans-Canadian

[Zassk]

It was only ever named 401 in the first place to copy Ontario, who is the only jurisdiction in the world that names their freeways in that way. Nowhere else but in southern Ontario do freeway numbers start in the 400's. Turning it back to Highway 1 was correcting a previous mistake.

Personally, I would like to have an explicit freeway system with its own numbers, just like Quebec's Autoroute system.