Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

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.

I have no confidence in the Vancouver (Downtown) BIA. They are a joke organization. The city has taken numerous measures that negatively affect businesses and they have been silent throughout it all. Big businesses are not members of that organization. They are more concerned about picking up cigarette butts on the street or cleaning up graffiti. Would NOT use them for financial matters.

And no business did not increase due to bike lanes. Not catering to cars as a means to increase business is silly and not mentioned anywhere. Generalizations like those are dangerous and just plain wrong. Some did, others didn't. Again, this group is extremely limited in what they can accomplish in regards to data.

And again, the "statistics" the city of Vancouver uses is rife with issues. Very few of them actually pass the scrutiny test.

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by 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.

The ramps at Main are original to the Viaduct design. The problem with Prior is that where there should be several more kilometers of viaduct and ramps the route abruptly ends, but we know what happened there, so instead what amounts to the main Downtown East-West throughway is dumped into low capacity streets over the length of two city blocks with only one major set of ramps.

That congestion is entirely the fault of the original redevelopment objection. It is not the fault of the viaduct itself being poorly designed or shortcomings brought on due to age.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by MIPS

The ramps at Main are original to the Viaduct design. The problem with Prior is that where there should be several more kilometers of viaduct and ramps the route abruptly ends, but we know what happened there, so instead what amounts to the main Downtown East-West throughway is dumped into low capacity streets over the length of two city blocks with only one major set of ramps.

That congestion is entirely the fault of the original redevelopment objection. It is not the fault of the viaduct itself being poorly designed or shortcomings brought on due to age.

ironically, this would have solved all their problems. traffic off the streets, below grade, and away from their houses/kids/etc.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

source

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

ironically, this would have solved all their problems. traffic off the streets, below grade, and away from their houses/kids/etc.

LOL, no, it would be a traffic mess and a giant hole gutting the neighbourhoods it goes through.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

A new Starbucks? A bakery? That IS exciting.

And stores are closed on Robson alright; but for different reasons

its what the people want, those places are always busy. I prefer robson after 9 pm when you can look in the windows, no need to shop in them

What does "excitement" mean in your world?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

ironically, this would have solved all their problems. traffic off the streets, below grade, and away from their houses/kids/etc.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

LOL, no, it would be a traffic mess and a giant hole gutting the neighbourhoods it goes through.

Just my opinion , and I agree with you that the construction phase would have been like open-heart surgery on an unanesthetized patient, but would it not have had long-term value?
Vehicular traffic is going to be with us for a long time it seems, even after the petrol runs dry and they switch to electric cars. As such, would it not be proactive to plan for this?
Mega $$$$$$$$$ I know, but perhaps worth it. I leave that up to the more informed members of the forum to debate that, if they would.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Heh, step away from the keyboard for just half a day...

Originally Posted by MIPS

That congestion is entirely the fault of the original redevelopment objection. It is not the fault of the viaduct itself being poorly designed or shortcomings brought on due to age.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

ironically, this would have solved all their problems. traffic off the streets, below grade, and away from their houses/kids/etc.

Kind of a moot point, unless we're ready to raze Produce Way and the Expo Line (which we aren't). Not much point yelling over spilled milk.

Originally Posted by Vin

It doesn't matter if they can or cannot make it to the top 50. The issue at hand is that we are dropping every year while others are replacing us. Yes, we may have started out strong (from previous policies), but we have become complacent. People should recognize the fact.

Mercer's, etc measure cities based on attractiveness to expats, and uses stuff like access to opera houses and free university as key metrics - that's why Zurich keeps topping the list despite being many times more stuffy and boring than Vancouver could ever be, and why NYC, London and Tokyo are inexplicably in the lower 40s. As with the Oscar shortlist, the top ten/twenty/fifty is sometimes more important than the actual winner.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Calgary: Would put their nite offerings on a similar level as Vancouver with under half the population.
Ottawa: USED to be dead, but not now. Was shocked just how lively their core has become. Again, would place them pretty darn close (if not slightly ahead) of Vancouver in these regards. The mere fact that they're even mentioned in the same breath as Vancouver is embarrassing for the latter.
As for Baltimore, yes it is better. Way easier to access too. For Vancouver, the mountains and ocean are nice, but that's about it.

The city has worked hard on developing that "rep" and has rightfully earned that title of "No Fun."

Unless one of us comes up with reliable downtown visitor statistics, perhaps we should agree to disagree. Last time I was in downtown Calgary, it was about as lively as Marpole on a school night.

I'll concede that we need more cultural amenities - I'd welcome a Music or Natural History museum like Alberta's, maybe a zoo - but fail to see how we're lagging hard. Baltimore's got just as many waterfront amenities as we do, except concentrated instead of spread out.

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

And if you want to cater to ALL modes of transportation, leave the existing friggin infrastructure alone, and work on adding others. Don't know why that is a difficult concept in this city.

That's the problem: other modes like transit and walking cannot be added with the viaducts blocking the way. So what we're doing is replacing six lanes of Georgia/Dunsmuir with six lanes of Pacific (minimal capacity loss, most additional dwell times are from the new intersections, which I agree should be dealt with), and get some buses running down that way. Get a nice district out of the bargain too.

If it helps, I felt the same way about the Burrard Bridge rebuild: surely it can't handle losing two lanes? But no traffic problems materialized, and now the walking experience is better. Shouldn't be any different here.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

its what the people want, those places are always busy. I prefer robson after 9 pm when you can look in the windows, no need to shop in them

What does "excitement" mean in your world?

A little more than a coffee shop and a bakery, but that’s just me LoL

No wonder they call us no fun. We don’t even know what it is LoL

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yes, and the 2018 one does not anticipate major traffic problems like the 2011 one does (IIRC, the prediction was 3-4 minutes back then). A minute of extra congestion translates to one more red light.

From the 2018 study (page 9): "Similar to general vehicle traffic, decrease in average vehicle travel time between 15-20% relative to the one-way network operations. Also offers increased flexibility of bus routes with less circuitous route choice." There's potential for two intersecting regular routes straight down both Pacific and Quebec, as opposed to just the 23 on a miniature Gran Turismo circuit.

I posted that as a reaction to a two-lane Prior; almost the entire forum agrees that it's a bad idea. OTOH, the viaducts would allow for better transit if removed.



You were talking about an 8-10 lane Pacific. Without the rework, there's no talk of extra lanes anywhere... and with the rework, Georgia becomes two-way and Dunsmuir becomes a dead-end. Unless we rebuild the former to match Pacific, the traffic merging is going to create as much (or more) congestion than a six-lane.

It does. And there's no reason to change that, unless you want a counterflow lane in the middle of nowhere. It allows Pacific westbound to be two lanes and calm.

How does keeping the viaducts help? I'm suggesting a partial separation of the pedestrian grid from the road grid; what we've got is a shared grid on top of another shared grid, neither of which properly connect to each other.



That's fair... though if a conventional grid is confusing, NEFC's ramen spill should be even more so!

Paris Place is good for accessing the Tinseltown area from the SkyTrain area. For Rogers Arena/Costco or further south from BC Place, it'd be just as good to have a direct path down Georgia to the seawall.

Because with the viaducts in the way, most developments would be effectively cut off from downtown, and vice versa. The futuristic vision of a towers under and around the viaducts with a "high street" along the walkways and elevators to the seawall sounded great when I thought of it in high school, but does not survive contact with its own logistics.

Well, the NEFC plan has 1 pedestrian overpass that pretty much replaces the current Viaduct-side stairs. A good start, but not exactly a 'separated grid'.

8 lanes allows for allows the use of Expo as part of the actual useful street network, and keeps the total road capacity at a level of the Viaducts+ 2 lanes for Pac. Blvd (which isn't used anywhere near capacity).

Dunsmuir would remain one way and connect to Expo, while Georgia is similar to the current plan, but with 2 westbound lanes replaced by eastbound ones. There's still always at least 2 lanes on every direction on Pac. Blvd and Georgia, meaning there's no need to do any sort of 'circuit'.

It's literally 8 lanes for a block and a half, it's not THAT big a deal.

10 lanes is 8 lanes+ parking/infill for LRT/BRT.

The confusingness actually comes from the claustrophobic and varied buildings attached together without any obvious landmarks. It's probably just that I'm not that used to it.
Note that the viaduct grid is actually decent by Suburban T. Center Standards. https://www.burnaby.ca/Assets/city+servi...ommunity+development/LUM+-+Brentwood.pdf

Stop moving the goalposts.
The connection to Costco doesn't look going to be improved as part of the NEFC plans- and in any case, there's a stairwell there.
There's also a set of stairs down from the Viaducts on the Georgia Viaduct.

Except Aquilini literally had already started building something like that 'fantasy' with the Rogers Arena developments.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's the problem: other modes like transit and walking cannot be added with the viaducts blocking the way. So what we're doing is replacing six lanes of Georgia/Dunsmuir with six lanes of Pacific (minimal capacity loss, most additional dwell times are from the new intersections, which I agree should be dealt with), and get some buses running down that way. Get a nice district out of the bargain too.

If it helps, I felt the same way about the Burrard Bridge rebuild: surely it can't handle losing two lanes? But no traffic problems materialized, and now the walking experience is better. Shouldn't be any different here.

Did you know that the sidewalks on the Western ends of the Viaducts weren't there when they were originally built? How do you think they got there?

Also, isn't the issue with buses and emergency vehicles on the viaducts is the possibility of the buses becoming stranded without an ability to properly evacuate? Rogers Arena seems to prove you can fix that problem.

Note that there's actually a comparable # of lanes off peak Westbound into DT as there is SB into DT- 20 vs 23, ignoring the viaduct removal and Granville Bridge rebuild.

With those projects, the lane ratio goes to 18 vs 20 off-peak.

So I don't know if Burrard is comparable, since there's almost as much redundancy N-S as there is E-W despite Vancouver being an E-W oriented region (not to mention quite a bit of excess capacity on the Granville Bridge).

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by logan5

Manhattan relies solely on transit for its daytime population, why cant Vancouver do the same. Nobodies drives in Manhattan.And nobody drives in Vancouver. Why is manhattan so great?
.

Manhattan has FDR Drive and a bunch of Bridges to Freeways that end just as they enter Manhattan. Note that FDR Drive is tolled, however; thus encouraging transit but still giving high-speed road access to the core.

Vancouver really IS an exception when it comes to Downtown Freeways.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Correct, it's not like Bellevue wouldn't exist if Seattle were denser.

TBF, Bellevue was forged in an era where the suburbs were all the rage (including for businesses), and it has Microsoft.

There's no comparison here. Surrey C. Center is growing at a time when companies want to be 'in the city' to appeal to millennials and network.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

I have no confidence in the Vancouver (Downtown) BIA. They are a joke organization. The city has taken numerous measures that negatively affect businesses and they have been silent throughout it all. Big businesses are not members of that organization. They are more concerned about picking up cigarette butts on the street or cleaning up graffiti. Would NOT use them for financial matters.

And no business did not increase due to bike lanes. Not catering to cars as a means to increase business is silly and not mentioned anywhere. Generalizations like those are dangerous and just plain wrong. Some did, others didn't. Again, this group is extremely limited in what they can accomplish in regards to data.

And again, the "statistics" the city of Vancouver uses is rife with issues. Very few of them actually pass the scrutiny test.

You're the same guy who said Calgary's downtown nightlife rivals Vancouver's. I hope you'll forgive me when I say I don't really believe anything you say.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

You're the same guy who said Calgary's downtown nightlife rivals Vancouver's. I hope you'll forgive me when I say I don't really believe anything you say.

You're forgiven, but it does rival it.(especially in the Summer).
And that fact is embarrassing for a market that is literally twice the size.

It shouldn't even be a discussion. But sadly it is.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by 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.

Not sure recent stats show overall traffic volumes are decreasing in Metro Vancouver but they certainly are in Metro Core of Vancouver proper. One thing folks forget that even though modal share percentages change in favour of transit or walking... that doesn't always translate to less cars on the roads. Vancouver's stats, for instance, show a slight yearly decrease in Vancouverites driving private cars (hard numbers) for regular commuting with other modes now surpassing private car use - however, most of Vancouver's commuting road traffic that increases is from a steady number of neighbouring cities car users, which causes congestion on the City's roads. This was remedied by the Evergreen Line which is yet to be included in Stats Canada and more express bus lines soon.

TransLink did find 80% of Metro Vancouver's bus routes are running slower than 5 years ago (don't think it said by how much, and with more boardings this leads to more delays too) and many of the most-troubled corridors and routes are getting bus priority upgrades and new express bus lines. So the issue already has a solution. Ridership can increase while road congestion increases as population grows and roadspace is allocated in the same manner.

Congestion stats I'm still not sure are for the City itself or the Metro. Vancouver proper does have one of the lowest commute time out of the Metro cities and highest percent live-work in their respective city.

Not sure these stats conflict, but stats do show that our current allocation of roadspace and total roadspace for private cars in Vancouver can decrease.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

You're forgiven, but it does rival it.(especially in the Summer).
And that fact is embarrassing for a market that is literally twice the size.

It shouldn't even be a discussion. But sadly it is.

As an Albertan this might be the first time I've heard this news outside of Medicine Hat.

Helps Metro Calgary has 1 "downtown", but we digress.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

I have no confidence in the Vancouver (Downtown) BIA. They are a joke organization. The city has taken numerous measures that negatively affect businesses and they have been silent throughout it all. Big businesses are not members of that organization. They are more concerned about picking up cigarette butts on the street or cleaning up graffiti. Would NOT use them for financial matters.

Really? Retail Manager, Pacific Centre at Cadillac Fairview; Senior Vice President, Office and Industrial, BC; Quad Real Property Group; Proprietor; Donnelly Group; Regional Director - BC & North Regions; Business Development Bank of Canada; Vice President, Asset Management; GWL Realty Advisors (among others) on the Board, and Senior Manager, Security and Life Safety; Cadillac Fairview; Manager of Member Services and Communications: Alliance of Beverage Licensees; VP, Senior Policy Analyst; Urban Development Institute; and Director of Government Affairs and Communications; BOMA BC among the members of the Policy Advisory Committee.

All businesses that pay property tax are members of the BIA - large or small. The Board and Advisory Board are elected by the membership, and reflect that mix - both large and small businesses, including some of the biggest landowners and developers in the Downtown.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

I have no confidence in the Vancouver (Downtown) BIA. They are a joke organization. The city has taken numerous measures that negatively affect businesses and they have been silent throughout it all. Big businesses are not members of that organization. They are more concerned about picking up cigarette butts on the street or cleaning up graffiti. Would NOT use them for financial matters.

And no business did not increase due to bike lanes. Not catering to cars as a means to increase business is silly and not mentioned anywhere. Generalizations like those are dangerous and just plain wrong. Some did, others didn't. Again, this group is extremely limited in what they can accomplish in regards to data.

And again, the "statistics" the city of Vancouver uses is rife with issues. Very few of them actually pass the scrutiny test.

https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2015/0...g-street-parking-into-bike-lanes/387595/

But here's the thing about the "studies on possible economic impacts" requested by retailers on Polk Street, or really wherever bike-lane plans emerge—they've been done. And done. And done again. And they all reach a similar conclusion: replacing on-street parking with a bike lane has little to no impact on local business, and in some cases might even increase business. While cyclists tend to spend less per shopping trip than drivers, they also tend to make more trips, pumping more total money into the local economy over time.

Surveys were conducted with 61 merchants and 538 patrons on Bloor Street in Toronto. It was found that only 10 percent of patrons drove to the shopping area, and that those arriving by foot and bicycle spent the most money per month. Report authors concluded that converting street parking into a bike lane in the area was "unlikely" to have a negative impact on business and that, on the contrary, "this change will likely increase commercial activity."

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Did you know that the sidewalks on the Western ends of the Viaducts weren't there when they were originally built? How do you think they got there?

The sidewalk on the Dunsmuir Viaduct at the western end was built very soon after the viaducts were completed (before 1974) - and I think were part of the original design. You can see it larger here. I think the sidewalk on the outer side of the Georgia Viaduct was also part of the original design. Do you have any images that don't show a sidewalk?

[Migrant_Coconut]

I'd say most of the problem for buses is the population increase: more residents = more pedestrians = more traffic lights & higher dwell times at intersections. Since we don't want to discourage walking, that means we need to either add limits for drivers or reduce driver/pedestrian conflicts.

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

You're forgiven, but it does rival it.(especially in the Summer).
And that fact is embarrassing for a market that is literally twice the size.

It shouldn't even be a discussion. But sadly it is.

Consider that "the grass is greener on the other side" may be in play here?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Well, the NEFC plan has 1 pedestrian overpass that pretty much replaces the current Viaduct-side stairs. A good start, but not exactly a 'separated grid'.

8 lanes allows for allows the use of Expo as part of the actual useful street network, and keeps the total road capacity at a level of the Viaducts+ 2 lanes for Pac. Blvd (which isn't used anywhere near capacity).

Dunsmuir would remain one way and connect to Expo, while Georgia is similar to the current plan, but with 2 westbound lanes replaced by eastbound ones. There's still always at least 2 lanes on every direction on Pac. Blvd and Georgia, meaning there's no need to do any sort of 'circuit'.

It's literally 8 lanes for a block and a half, it's not THAT big a deal.

10 lanes is 8 lanes+ parking/infill for LRT/BRT.

Right. Still pushing for further separation at the open houses.

Expo is useful in the current plan. Pacific would be two lanes westbound and four lanes eastbound, the former being mostly local traffic. Dunsmuir cuts off at Beatty and becomes a cycling/pedestrian path; Expo can't connect to it without having Stadium-Chinatown relocate.

Our bridge cloverleafs and on-ramps will demonstrate that merging two/three lanes into one is like pulling teeth sometimes. Better to have 100% continuous lanes.

Originally Posted by fredinno

The confusingness actually comes from the claustrophobic and varied buildings attached together without any obvious landmarks. It's probably just that I'm not that used to it.
Note that the viaduct grid is actually decent by Suburban T. Center Standards. https://www.burnaby.ca/Assets/city+servi...ommunity+development/LUM+-+Brentwood.pdf

Stop moving the goalposts.
The connection to Costco doesn't look going to be improved as part of the NEFC plans- and in any case, there's a stairwell there.
There's also a set of stairs down from the Viaducts on the Georgia Viaduct.

Except Aquilini literally had already started building something like that 'fantasy' with the Rogers Arena developments.

Did you know that the sidewalks on the Western ends of the Viaducts weren't there when they were originally built? How do you think they got there?

Also, isn't the issue with buses and emergency vehicles on the viaducts is the possibility of the buses becoming stranded without an ability to properly evacuate? Rogers Arena seems to prove you can fix that problem.

Which goalposts, where? Admittedly could've phrased it better, but it's accurate to say that the viaducts are more of an obstacle than an access point when you're walking; NEFC is no longer a suburban area, and a suburban grid doesn't really make sense.
WRT Costco, it's not really about easier access more than easier understanding of access. Spent twenty minutes walking around BC Place on the first go. The stairs don't help much - they're practically hidden.

A second level between Rogers and the "ledge" on Beatty makes sense; beyond Rogers, it becomes less of a connection and more of a plateau. What would the south and east towers connect to? The east one doesn't even get a sidewalk! No, the stadium and its evacuation routes are independent of the viaducts, and for a good reason.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Note that there's actually a comparable # of lanes off peak Westbound into DT as there is SB into DT- 20 vs 23, ignoring the viaduct removal and Granville Bridge rebuild.

With those projects, the lane ratio goes to 18 vs 20 off-peak.

So I don't know if Burrard is comparable, since there's almost as much redundancy N-S as there is E-W despite Vancouver being an E-W oriented region (not to mention quite a bit of excess capacity on the Granville Bridge).

Six of one, half a dozen of another IMO. A day may come when we remove one lane too many, but it is not this day.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Manhattan has FDR Drive and a bunch of Bridges to Freeways that end just as they enter Manhattan. Note that FDR Drive is tolled, however; thus encouraging transit but still giving high-speed road access to the core.

Vancouver really IS an exception when it comes to Downtown Freeways...

... TBF, Bellevue was forged in an era where the suburbs were all the rage (including for businesses), and it has Microsoft.

There's no comparison here. Surrey C. Center is growing at a time when companies want to be 'in the city' to appeal to millennials and network.

Many cities have ring roads instead of downtown freeways. Given our unique geography, the Trans-Canada is basically half a ring.

Convergent evolution then. Oakland, Midtown, Century City - seems that North American metros are too spread out for one single downtown.