Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[trofirhen]

Looking at this, it somehow seems that, maybe in decades to come, that the Malkin Connector, which lead to roads that lead to the Grandview cut, will ultimately force use of The Cut.
Looking on any map, Google or otherwise, it shows the West bound Highway 1 Exit west, leading right onto the Grandview Highway, will lead to this. Nimbys might scream, anything happen.
But the pertinence of The Grandview Cut is insistent. As for the trains ... is the this the only eastward rail exit from the main CN yards? If it is, can we build a tunnel for them?
Whatever the case,and whatever the outcome, being in the right place at the right time has made the Cut an inescapable element of future infrastructure, in 'and/or' blend of road, rail, rrt

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Looking at this, it somehow seems that, maybe in decades to come, that the Malkin Connector, which lead to roads that lead to the Grandview cut, will ultimately force use of The Cut.
Looking on any map, Google or otherwise, it shows the West bound Highway 1 Exit west, leading right onto the Grandview Highway, will lead to this. Nimbys might scream, anything happen.
But the pertinence of The Grandview Cut is insistent. As for the trains ... is the this the only eastward rail exit from the main CN yards? If it is, can we build a tunnel for them?
Whatever the case,and whatever the outcome, being in the right place at the right time has made the Cut an inescapable element of future infrastructure, in 'and/or' blend of road, rail, rrt

Grandview Cut should remain a rail right of way.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

As for the trains ... is the this the only eastward rail exit from the main CN yards? If it is, can we build a tunnel for them?

We seem to be making a lot of investment to eliminate the conflict between surface traffic and those trains, so I seriously doubt they're going anywhere soon.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

We seem to be making a lot of investment to eliminate the conflict between surface traffic and those trains, so I seriously doubt they're going anywhere soon.

I wasn't thinking of taking away the trains. I was thinking of layering the cut, putting the trains in a tunnel to a point, with a connecting expressway over top.
I realize this would not be considered for decades, anyway, but one day, it just might be.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I wasn't thinking of taking away the trains. I was thinking of layering the cut, putting the trains in a tunnel to a point, with a connecting expressway over top.
I realize this would not be considered for decades, anyway, but one day, it just might be.

yeah it would not be considered for decades, decades in the past. you could even put SkyTrain over top of the train tracks and turn that into a kind of tunnel. the massive cut is already there, why not actually use it for something to get all those cars off surface streets and then do all that traffic calming that is in the west end. talk about making an area more walk and bike friendly. just get cars into the cut.




source

[logan5]

If the City were to hatch a plan for an expressway from DT to the #1, wouldn't it be easier to build an elevated expressway over top of Waterfront Rd/Commisioner St.? The grandview Cut doesn't look nearly wide enough and there's already the Millennium Line running down it.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by logan5

If the City were to hatch a plan for an expressway from DT to the #1, wouldn't it be easier to build an elevated expressway over top of Waterfront Rd/Commisioner St.? The grandview Cut doesn't look nearly wide enough and there's already the Millennium Line running down it.

Excuse me, but I still think you're selling the Cut short. It could be widened, and adapted. $$$$$$$$$$$$? Yes. A lot of work? Yes. But very much worth it in the long haul.
Esp since the Waterfront / Comissioner street expresway (and I'd like that, too) seems precluded by city hall.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Excuse me, but I still think you're selling the Cut short. It could be widened, and adapted. $$$$$$$$$$$$? Yes. A lot of work? Yes. But very much worth it in the long haul.
Esp since the Waterfront / Comissioner street expresway (and I'd like that, too) seems precluded by city hall.

How would it be worth it? Motor vehicles are an incredible inefficient way of moving people around. Once the Expo Line upgrades are complete, the 6.2 wide corridor will move the equivalent of 22 lanes of freeway traffic (over 90 m wide).

If capacity ever becomes an issue, just build more transit.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

If capacity ever becomes an issue, just build more transit.

Cue the fallacious "goods movement" argument...

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Cue the fallacious "goods movement" argument...

Yeah. Well. Over the past 15 years the total number of registered vehicles in Metro Vancouver has increased by ~33% - Even the City of Van proper sees continued growth with the addition of ~3,500 more vehicles every year over the past 4 years.

BTW, the 33% growth in total number of vehicles outstrips Metro Vancouver population growth during that same 15 year time frame, which was ~28%.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Yeah. Well. Over the past 15 years the total number of registered vehicles in Metro Vancouver has increased by ~33% - Even the City of Van proper sees continued growth with the addition of ~3,500 more vehicles every year over the past 4 years.

BTW, the 33% growth in total number of vehicles outstrips Metro Vancouver population growth during that same 15 year time frame, which was ~28%.

Why do people keep saying vehicle use is going down? Its not something I have ever believed to be true, but it seems like that argument gets trotted out any time there is the slightest discussion about building some sort of new road infrastructure.

In light of the information you just posted it seems like saying vehicle use is going down, is actually the true fallacious argument.

[WarrenC12]

First of all, cars owned does not equal mileage travelled.

Second, I would love to see some stats to back up those claims. It's a fact that millenials aren't getting drivers licenses as much, never mind buying cars, compared to earlier generations.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

First of all, cars owned does not equal mileage travelled.

Second, I would love to see some stats to back up those claims. It's a fact that millenials aren't getting drivers licenses as much, never mind buying cars, compared to earlier generations.

Oh I understand it doesnt equal mileage, I wasnt trying to suggest that either. Here is some info I found. http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/r...nningPublications/RegisteredVehicles.pdf I'm not gonna do the math on it (you can if you want) but it seems to back up what Stingray2004 was saying. What you say may be true(about millenials) i dont know. (do you have a source to back up your claim?) but if new vehicles are out stripping population growth. Then my point stands. I believe.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

Oh I understand it doesnt equal mileage, I wasnt trying to suggest that either. Here is some info I found. http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/r...nningPublications/RegisteredVehicles.pdf I'm not gonna do the math on it (you can if you want) but it seems to back up what Stingray2004 was saying. What you say may be true(about millenials) i dont know. (do you have a source to back up your claim?) but if new vehicles are out stripping population growth. Then my point stands. I believe.

If we are talking about traffic and the need for roads, actual mileage driven is far more important than how many cars exist.

For millenials, I only have this after a quick search, from the USA on driver's licenses:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2016/01/19/drivers-licenses-uber-lyft/78994526/

City of Vancouver shows the decreasing mode share of autos along with the decreased driving per person:

http://vancouver.ca/green-vancouver/green-transportation.aspx#transportation-progress

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

Oh I understand it doesnt equal mileage, I wasnt trying to suggest that either. Here is some info I found. http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/r...nningPublications/RegisteredVehicles.pdf I'm not gonna do the math on it (you can if you want) but it seems to back up what Stingray2004 was saying. What you say may be true(about millenials) i dont know. (do you have a source to back up your claim?) but if new vehicles are out stripping population growth. Then my point stands. I believe.

Well that may be the case, however, what matters is how much people are actually driving and by all counts that has been decreasing. VKT per capita in Metro Vancouver has been decreasing and transit usage has been steadily increasing (now at nearly 20% region-wide). This is also not just a regional trend, this is a North American trend as well.

[Infrequent Poster]

I guess I look at Vancouver as the metro area. Not just the city proper. I mean Vancouver (proper) is actually actively making it harder to get around by car.

I was hoping you had some actual information pertaining to the number of licenses within the Vancouver metro as opposed to a study done in michigan. Not saying it isnt the same thing here, but you stating that such and such is a fact. Then your source is a study done in michigan?

I guess it just comes down to I honestly dont think traffic or car ownership is decreasing (in the metro). You obviously do.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

I was hoping you had some actual information pertaining to the number of licenses within the Vancouver metro as opposed to a study done in michigan. Not saying it isnt the same thing here, but you stating that such and such is a fact. Then your source is a study done in michigan?

I guess it just comes down to I honestly dont think traffic or car ownership is decreasing (in the metro). You obviously do.

In the Metro area, car usage is absolutely increasing. People have no alternatives. Uber doesn't exist, car sharing doesn't really exist outside of the COV, and transit expansion has been stalled. No surprises there.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

I guess I look at Vancouver as the metro area. Not just the city proper. I mean Vancouver (proper) is actually actively making it harder to get around by car.

I was hoping you had some actual information pertaining to the number of licenses within the Vancouver metro as opposed to a study done in michigan. Not saying it isnt the same thing here, but you stating that such and such is a fact. Then your source is a study done in michigan?

I guess it just comes down to I honestly dont think traffic or car ownership is decreasing (in the metro). You obviously do.

Ok, fair point. Well here is some real data from Translink and it shows that per capita has been decreasing especially in the last few years.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

In the Metro area, car usage is absolutely increasing. People have no alternatives. Uber doesn't exist, car sharing doesn't really exist outside of the COV, and transit expansion has been stalled. No surprises there.

You realize most nearby suburbanites work in the city though right?

Also Modo and car2go exist in the Lonsdale area, but no one in their right mind is going to use car sharing to go to work. It's way more expensive than owning a car.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Ok, fair point. Well here is some real data from Translink and it shows that per capita has been decreasing especially in the last few years.

Per capita can be a misleading stat in this regard. For example, if the per capita consumption of something stays the same, but the population increases, then the total consumption is increasing. If I had a business and I increased my prices, and my per customer spending had increased $10 this year, that stat would be completely pointless outside of context: it's horrible if my customer base dropped 90% as a result of the higher prices.

So the question is, does the decrease in the per capita vehicle miles traveled exceed the increase in the population? Metro's population has grown by more than 16% over that time, but that chart shows about a 7% decline per capita in use. That means there is probably a net increase of total vehicle miles traveled.

It is a good statistic. It shows that transit does have an impact. But it doesn't show the problem has been solved, nor necessarily indicate that the trend would continue to zero if ran to infinity.