Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

That's the point. We shouldn't be catering to cars. Vancouver doesn't want to cater to cars, especially in the downtown core. We need to shift away from this idea that you should be able to drive your polluting steel box everywhere without restrictions.

I guess you can try to create new skytrains that can also ferry taxis, buses, delivery trucks and vans, since you think that roads tomorrow should not be catering to cars or any other vehicles. Try bringing those into the downtown peninsula without any good road infrastructure if you can.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

All modes are being accommodated by removing infrastructure, and replacing it with nothing?

Thats quite the magic trick

There is no final road design for construction: https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/streetscape-design.aspx

I understand it might not accommodate the private automobile as much as some may prefer. As per the data, the modal shift in Metro Van and Van proper by 2030 will require less lanes for private cars and more for transit only, whether that is through current lane conversions or "added" bus-only lanes with this new area road. The City will retain a ROW for streetcar as per existing roads and planning docs on Pacific Boulevard all the way from Olympic Village along Quebec as well as 1st.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

I guess you can try to create new skytrains that can also ferry taxis, buses, delivery trucks and vans, since you think that roads tomorrow should not be catering to cars or any other vehicles. Try bringing those into the downtown peninsula without any good road infrastructure if you can.

Number of cars entering downtown are decreasing while number of people increase using the roughly same number of traffic lanes. I think 3 lanes were lost in total in 10 years?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Vin

I guess you can try to create new skytrains that can also ferry taxis, buses, delivery trucks and vans, since you think that roads tomorrow should not be catering to cars or any other vehicles. Try bringing those into the downtown peninsula without any good road infrastructure if you can.

Really?

I'm FOR retaining the viaducts, and this is ridiculous. Not catering =/= space not given.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

And that is the problem. People like to point out road infrastructure that was removed, yet they conveniently forget to point out that it was replaced with something else.

What we have here in Vancouver with the viaducts, is that we plan on removing infrastructure, and replacing it with absolutely nothing.

Whats even worse, is then we have the propaganda from City Hall where they try to convince us that somehow traffic will magically improve when Gr. 2 logic tells us otherwise.

Yes. That 'propoganda' tells us exactly that; ie: the Viaducts will come down, opening space for residential buildings and parks, and the 'super' road will take care of the rest.
All of that is (IMO) rather like the famous line by a Canadian politician that "the budget will balance itself." OK. Go ahead. Take 'em down. Then wait until super-gridlock sets in.
I do not understand how people cannot get a handle on this. Maybe they think that transit will be so good that cars won't be necessary, but they're in for a reality shock when it happens.
What replaces it doesn't have to be on the scale of the Alaskan Way tunnel, but short tunnel underpasses past controlled intersections will make their necessity felt, too late (IMO)

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Number of cars entering downtown are decreasing while number of people increase using the roughly same number of traffic lanes. I think 3 lanes were lost in total in 10 years?

Not even close

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

There is no final road design for construction: https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/streetscape-design.aspx

I understand it might not accommodate the private automobile as much as some may prefer. As per the data, the modal shift in Metro Van and Van proper by 2030 will require less lanes for private cars and more for transit only, whether that is through current lane conversions or "added" bus-only lanes with this new area road. The City will retain a ROW for streetcar as per existing roads and planning docs on Pacific Boulevard all the way from Olympic Village along Quebec as well as 1st.

No final design plan? Thats almost even worse than a poor design plan. You don't sell your house then when the question of where you sleeping tonight you answer "not sure."

You remove 6 lanes worth of traffic hen you remove the viaducts. You already have 6 lanes underneath them in another road (12 total lanes). Bet ya any money the "solution" won't have as high of capacity. as what is there now. (please note attaching a neat label such as "super road" ain't fooling anybody)

Will require less lanes as per which metric? Who decides how many lanes are or are not needed? What were the parameters of how this "data" was acquired?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

[/B]

Not even close

Entering. Not within Downtown.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Will require less lanes as per which metric? Who decides how many lanes are or are not needed? What were the parameters of how this "data" was acquired?

Magic. Science, data, and urban planning is based on magic. Or did I just spill the beanz here?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

All modes are being accommodated by removing infrastructure, and replacing it with nothing?

Thats quite the magic trick

Additional lanes are being added to the roadway below.

Additional transit capacity is being added in the form of more (and higher capacity) trains per hour.

[GenWhy?]

Jokes aside, you can examine all the City's data (they are data fiends) as well as Metro Vancouver's and Stats Canada / Canada Census. With that data you can examine years of urban planning and modal shift / space re-allocation per modes and the resulting percent increase in that mode's overall count in total transportation share.

Shift in allocated resources (land and infrastructure and spending) leads (generally) to a shift in mode of transport. City of Vancouver commute share for cars (driver and passenger) is at or under 50% (Census Canada, 2016 pre-Evergreen Line) and is decreasing in the City and Metro. We have surpassed our 2020 goal while the City's population has steadily grown.

Of the largest city in the Metro, Vancouver nearly tripled it's share of transit users from 1996-2016. Burnaby has roughly 60% commuting by car, and Coquitlam at roughly 75%, all pre-Evergreen Line.

Even commute duration data is on Stats Can.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Entering. Not within Downtown.

Gotcha.

But in that case even 3 is a pretty high number

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Magic. Science, data, and urban planning is based on magic. Or did I just spill the beanz here?

I agree. Little light on the "science"; heavy on the "magic"

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

No final design plan? Thats almost even worse than a poor design plan. You don't sell your house then when the question of where you sleeping tonight you answer "not sure."

You remove 6 lanes worth of traffic hen you remove the viaducts. You already have 6 lanes underneath them in another road (12 total lanes). Bet ya any money the "solution" won't have as high of capacity. as what is there now. (please note attaching a neat label such as "super road" ain't fooling anybody)

Will require less lanes as per which metric? Who decides how many lanes are or are not needed? What were the parameters of how this "data" was acquired?

Traffic capacity does not equal # of traffic lanes.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Additional lanes are being added to the roadway below.

Additional transit capacity is being added in the form of more (and higher capacity) trains per hour.

How many? 1?

You are losing 6 for the viaducts. Any number less than that on the "new" road = longer wait times, more traffic, barrier to commerce etc etc.

Higher capacity trains, lanes painted red, awarness programs, insert other gimmick here_________ will do nothing.

No COV spin will change that fact.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Gotcha.

But in that case even 3 is a pretty high number

Agree and I look forward to the end of the Cambie Bridge pilot to examine its success. At 50% Vancouver commuting by car, a re-allocation of 3 traffic lanes entering the Downtown seems reasonable. So will the reconfiguration at NEF Creek, as per current and future trends in mode share and development.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Traffic capacity does not equal # of traffic lanes.

Agreed. Not always, but in this instance, it does unfortunately.

[logan5]

The viaducts create congestion.

The viaducts quickly funnel cars to Prior or Main street, and create high volumes of traffic along those streets. A new traffic light controlled Pacific would certainly have higher volumes than than the viaducts, but traffic would be metered more slowly onto Prior and Main, creating lower traffic volumes along those streets, so you are just displacing traffic volumes to a different area.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

And then in the process, doesn't cater to [all] customers either. THAT was/is the point

Wrong. When Vancouver stopped prioritizing privately owned vehicles by replacing on-street parking spots with bike lanes, the Downtown Vancouver BIA lost their minds because they had the same mindset you do. "We'll lose customers!" they cried.

And now they're among the largest proponents of bike lanes, because as it turns out not catering to cars actually increased their business.

And as for the nonsense about delivery vans getting stuck in way too much traffic, that's right assuming Vancouver's privately owned single-occupancy vehicles stay at the same volume. But this isn't happening, privately owned single-occupancy vehicle rates are going down, being replaced by bicycles and transit use. This is borne out by the actual statistics. This leaves more room for vehicle traffic that cannot be replaced by bicycles or transit, like delivery vans or tradespeople or emergency services.

[Metro-One]

There sure are a lot of conflicting stats...

Traffic volumes decreasing in Vancouver, yet 80% of bus routes are operating slower, Vancouver still among most congested urban areas, etc...

A big part of the problem is Vancouver (and especially downtown Vancouver) is often looked at in a bubble. As if it is a separate entity that can survive without the surrounding areas.

Maybe part of the reason traffic volumes are down in downtown Vancouver is because nearly all of the industrial jobs that existed on the peninsula have been moved to the suburbs, and people who work at such jobs often need to drive. Truth is downtown Vancouver May be able to operate without freeways, but Metro-Vancouver sure couldn’t and needs upgrades to its highway system.

Once again walking around in the city next to me, Takamatsu, I thought about how 1 dimensional Vancouver’s road system is. All roads are one size fits all in Vancouver, while in Takamatsu and indeed most of Japan they are layered.

In the span of a couple blocks one comes across the following in Takamatsu: An elevated limited access expressway for through / heavy traffic, a six lane at grade ceremonial artery with car and bus priority, small Vancouver like roads with all forms of traffic, small single lane roads with bicycle priority, and pedestrian only roads often covered with arcades from the elements. Layers!

I would be much happier with Vancouver if it had a true expressway system, but at the same time also had true pedestrian only streets and true bicycle only arteries. Not the shitty watered down version of all forms crammed together.