Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[officedweller]

Thanks!

That diagram confirms that Pacific Boulevard will be made 2-way, since there are both left and right turns at the bottom of the ramp.

[Migrant_Coconut]

2020... so we're looking at a construction start in early-mid '21?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

No, useful. Check again - it takes the Yaletown/Beach traffic, so that Pacific westbound west of Georgia only needs two lanes. That frees up four (three standard lanes plus median/turning lane) eastbound.
Pacific westbound east of Georgia has two right-turn lanes and a straight lane. A larger Pacific would either have 3+ right-turn lanes trying to merge into Georgia's 2 (not good, especially with Metro Van drivers) or two straight lanes, which is kind of redundant; Pacific westbound at Burrard only needs one.

With the SkyTrain guideway blocking any rise in height, the only options for an Expo-Dunsmuir road are a brand new viaduct, a relocated SkyTrain, or a 20-25% grade ramp that closes off Citadel Parade. Best to stick with Georgia IMO.

Yeah, nobody wants this underbuilt. But if downtown vehicle usage keeps going down and transit keeps going up, there shouldn't be a problem; if the opposite somehow happens, the viaducts are going to be useless anyway.

---

More find-able: just walk down the Georgia Ramp and around the Arena. I find squares easier to navigate than squiggles, the only problem is getting the right address.

---

That's the point of a ring road - loop around the suburbs, bypass the city proper. To use examples, Paris' is about equidistant to the TCH, but D.C.'s Beltway would be out at Coquitlam and Surrey!

Midtown is Joyce-Collingwood, distance-wise. As for Surrey, it's set to become 25% of the metro, and would be either the terminus or a stop for the HSR. I'd argue that a city centre south of the Fraser is preferable to a million new commuters headed to Metrotown or the CBD.

The majority of people driving through the area are going into the CBD via the viaducts (as shown in the old report). Unless there's a massive building boom in the West End, you could probably get by with only Pacific Blvd based off current traffic levels and lane count. Though admittedly, having Expo Blvd doesn't hurt in this case. My point was that it's kind of a strange appendage that's probably never going to be used as much as everything else. Considering the amount of cars going through... we can do better.
Ok, I finally had time to finish my diagram on the proposed 8 lane network (which is what took so long XD). Note I couldn't find a NEFC map that included enough land to show everything that needed to be shown, so I just drew the existing proposed and my proposed street network from Google Earth.



6px for each lane- the black are the current proposed roads in the network (minus parking lanes and bike lanes- the latter which could be pushed closer into the parkland).
The Grey Lanes are the new lanes needed for an 8-lane infrastructure. This image shows Expo Blvd carrying 3 lanes of traffic westbound to a 2-lane Dunsmuir Street. Pacific Blvd would be redesigned to accommodate 4 lanes of eastbound traffic and 2 lanes of westbound traffic.
Note that the reductions to the Andy Livingstone soccer fields would still make the fields longer than those in Trillium Park.
If the reductions are not acceptable, the minor losses in park space could be compensated by converting the Murrin Substation (highlighted in yellow), which BC Hydro plans to be shut down and move to a different East Van location in 2030 due to seismic issues on the site to parkland. Otherwise, the site could be used to build 20 stories of social housing and rental.

I'd like to point out that below the Dunsmuir Viaduct, there's actually enough space for not only the viaduct, but also 2 lanes of road (which are actually already existent, used as part of the Downtown Costco Laneway, the rebuilt version which is in red and would be a parallel lane to the proposed Dunsmuir Connector.)
There wouldn't be space to keep the parking lot underneath Dunsmuir Station though. Not a big loss though- it could be repurposed to something more useful (like supermarket retail and/or pubs) anyways.

The grade from Expo to Citadel Parade is about 6.7%. In comparison, the grade between 69 Ave and 68 Ave on 200 St in Langley is *11%*.

Tell me if there's anything confusing or unclear. Because so far, we really haven't had the same road system in mind.

Well, we have different brains attuned to different urban landscapes.




I think you're missing relative distance. Yes, in absolute terms you are right. But I'd argue that the scale of ring roads and downtown extensions are larger because those cities are larger.

Surrey is only so big in population because of its land base and municipal borders, which are arbitrary.
Let's not kid ourselves, the biggest reason there's a Surrey HSR station even considered is because they want to make Surrey a new Downtown. It's not exactly easy to find enough space to put a Surrey Station.
Compare it to other cities of similar size. Does Portland have a 2nd downtown? Montreal? Even Toronto or Calgary?

[Klazu]

That bike lane on Expo... Just how many parallel bike lanes do we need?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The majority of people driving through the area are going into the CBD via the viaducts (as shown in the old report). Unless there's a massive building boom in the West End, you could probably get by with only Pacific Blvd based off current traffic levels and lane count. Though admittedly, having Expo Blvd doesn't hurt in this case. My point was that it's kind of a strange appendage that's probably never going to be used as much as everything else. Considering the amount of cars going through... we can do better...

... 6px for each lane- the black are the current proposed roads in the network (minus parking lanes and bike lanes- the latter which could be pushed closer into the parkland).
The Grey Lanes are the new lanes needed for an 8-lane infrastructure. This image shows Expo Blvd carrying 3 lanes of traffic westbound to a 2-lane Dunsmuir Street. Pacific Blvd would be redesigned to accommodate 4 lanes of eastbound traffic and 2 lanes of westbound traffic.
Note that the reductions to the Andy Livingstone soccer fields would still make the fields longer than those in Trillium Park.
If the reductions are not acceptable, the minor losses in park space could be compensated by converting the Murrin Substation (highlighted in yellow), which BC Hydro plans to be shut down and move to a different East Van location in 2030 due to seismic issues on the site to parkland. Otherwise, the site could be used to build 20 stories of social housing and rental.

I'd like to point out that below the Dunsmuir Viaduct, there's actually enough space for not only the viaduct, but also 2 lanes of road (which are actually already existent, used as part of the Downtown Costco Laneway, the rebuilt version which is in red and would be a parallel lane to the proposed Dunsmuir Connector.)
There wouldn't be space to keep the parking lot underneath Dunsmuir Station though. Not a big loss though- it could be repurposed to something more useful (like supermarket retail and/or pubs) anyways.

The grade from Expo to Citadel Parade is about 6.7%. In comparison, the grade between 69 Ave and 68 Ave on 200 St in Langley is *11%*.

Tell me if there's anything confusing or unclear. Because so far, we really haven't had the same road system in mind.

Well, we have different brains attuned to different urban landscapes.

No doubt Expo looks strange, but it's just as busy as any other downtown road at rush hour. It's not going anywhere.

We're definitely not on the same page here. I'm seeing a 15-20m rise over a 100m run to Citadel Parade - 15% at the shallowest.

For a slightly less subjective comparison, the Fairview slopes and Georgia Ramp are definitely 1.5x longer (and 1.5x shallower) than your Dunsmuir Ramp, and they're still considered "steep" by engineers and commuters alike. The original Georgia Steps (where the Georgia Viaduct was kept and the walkway started above Expo) required an elevator!

Originally Posted by fredinno

I think you're missing relative distance. Yes, in absolute terms you are right. But I'd argue that the scale of ring roads and downtown extensions are larger because those cities are larger.

Surrey is only so big in population because of its land base and municipal borders, which are arbitrary.
Let's not kid ourselves, the biggest reason there's a Surrey HSR station even considered is because they want to make Surrey a new Downtown. It's not exactly easy to find enough space to put a Surrey Station.
Compare it to other cities of similar size. Does Portland have a 2nd downtown? Montreal? Even Toronto or Calgary?

I'd concede that point if those ring roads hadn't been built in the Sixties when their cities were smaller. When it comes to infrastructure, you build big and wait to grow into it.

Now we're back at square one: Bellevue, Oakland, Mississauga, St Louis' Clayton, Century City, Midtown Houston. Vancouver (Oregon) may join them once Portland gets big enough.
If this were the GNWRD (New West) instead of the GVRD, the "one central downtown" thing might have a leg to stand on, being in the middle of the metro. But in the upper left corner? Let Surrey run wild.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

No doubt Expo looks strange, but it's just as busy as any other downtown road at rush hour. It's not going anywhere.

We're definitely not on the same page here. I'm seeing a 15-20m rise over a 100m run to Citadel Parade - 15% at the shallowest.

For a slightly less subjective comparison, the Fairview slopes and Georgia Ramp are definitely 1.5x longer (and 1.5x shallower) than your Dunsmuir Ramp, and they're still considered "steep" by engineers and commuters alike. The original Georgia Steps (where the Georgia Viaduct was kept and the walkway started above Expo) required an elevator!



I'd concede that point if those ring roads hadn't been built in the Sixties when their cities were smaller. When it comes to infrastructure, you build big and wait to grow into it.

Now we're back at square one: Bellevue, Oakland, Mississauga, St Louis' Clayton, Century City, Midtown Houston. Vancouver (Oregon) may join them once Portland gets big enough.
If this were the GNWRD (New West) instead of the GVRD, the "one central downtown" thing might have a leg to stand on, being in the middle of the metro. But in the upper left corner? Let Surrey run wild.

The distance from Expo to Citadel Parade is about 120meters. That's the problem with your measurements.

True, the Dunsmuir Ramp is steep, and an elevator would be nice for accessability reasons.
That Georgia Ramp in that concept looks to be of similar length to my proposed Dunsmuir Ramp as well.
You might actually be able to get away with only allowing entrance from Georgia into Citadel Parade too.


Sir, the population of Metro New York in 1960 was 13.57 Million. That's several orders of magnitude above even modern Vancouver.

And I've already pointed out that those places were either anchored or effectively built by a big corporation. Maybe Clayton, but/though I also can't find any real comprehensive history behind it and its formation.
The municipal structure seems to be similar, with the city being heavily municipally split and having most of its growth after the suburban office boom of the 90s and 80s.


Though, it says something that the Amazon HQ2 proposers chose Vancouver over Surrey despite the obvious advantages Surrey had (like the ability to have a more centralized campus and lower lease rates).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Sir, the population of Metro New York in 1960 was 13.57 Million. That's several orders of magnitude above even modern Vancouver.

Pedantic alert: "Order of magnitude" means "move the decimal position". Several orders of magnitude less than 13,570,000 would be something like 135. In fact the difference in population is more like one order of magnitude.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The distance from Expo to Citadel Parade is about 120meters. That's the problem with your measurements.

True, the Dunsmuir Ramp is steep, and an elevator would be nice for accessability reasons.
That Georgia Ramp in that concept looks to be of similar length to my proposed Dunsmuir Ramp as well.
You might actually be able to get away with only allowing entrance from Georgia into Citadel Parade too.

Even with that assumption, that's a 12.5 percent grade or more, not 6.7.

The Georgia Steps are similar, yes, and I believe they got rejected for being too steep and poorly integrated; the Georgia Ramp goes from Citadel to Pacific, a relatively more gradual slope. For the Dunsmuir Ramp, turning Citadel into a cul-de-sac & removing the Stadium-Chinatown concourse probably aren't very palatable options for a minimal increase in vehicle flow.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Sir, the population of Metro New York in 1960 was 13.57 Million. That's several orders of magnitude above even modern Vancouver.

And I've already pointed out that those places were either anchored or effectively built by a big corporation. Maybe Clayton, but/though I also can't find any real comprehensive history behind it and its formation.
The municipal structure seems to be similar, with the city being heavily municipally split and having most of its growth after the suburban office boom of the 90s and 80s.


Though, it says something that the Amazon HQ2 proposers chose Vancouver over Surrey despite the obvious advantages Surrey had (like the ability to have a more centralized campus and lower lease rates).

Um, how'd we get to New York? We were talking about D.C. and Paris. Granted, those were also bigger cities back then, but what about Birmingham or Columbus? It's almost like every ring road/bypass planner went to the same school and were taught to build 8-15 km from the city core or something like that.

Vancouver's suburbs were/are also built around anchors, and by corporations. Not sure what the difference is between an abandoned studio backlot and a quiet mall - to a condo developer, both are ripe for the taking.

Sure, Whalley isn't Vancouver yet in terms of desireability, might not ever be. No reason they can't give it a shot.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Even with that assumption, that's a 12.5 percent grade or more, not 6.7.

The Georgia Steps are similar, yes, and I believe they got rejected for being too steep and poorly integrated; the Georgia Ramp goes from Citadel to Pacific, a relatively more gradual slope. For the Dunsmuir Ramp, turning Citadel into a cul-de-sac & removing the Stadium-Chinatown concourse probably aren't very palatable options for a minimal increase in vehicle flow.



Um, how'd we get to New York? We were talking about D.C. and Paris. Granted, those were also bigger cities back then, but what about Birmingham or Columbus? It's almost like every ring road/bypass planner went to the same school and were taught to build 8-15 km from the city core or something like that.

Vancouver's suburbs were/are also built around anchors, and by corporations. Not sure what the difference is between an abandoned studio backlot and a quiet mall - to a condo developer, both are ripe for the taking.

Sure, Whalley isn't Vancouver yet in terms of desireability, might not ever be. No reason they can't give it a shot.

What are you using for height?
I'm using https://www.heywhatsthat.com/profiler.html and I got 23 feet rise and a 375 ft run (the profiler glitches out next to the viaduct and skytrain, so I had to make the run shorter and get the run off google earth manually.

The concourse is basically just used to store bicycles and Citadel is a residential street for Concord condos. Pardon me if I disagree with you here.

Because my first example of JFK Parkway is a ring road. But it doesn't matter, my point stands.

Both Columbus and Birmingham have what are pretty much downtown freeways as much as the old Chinatown freeway plan was supposed to be, encircling the city core. The city planning schools in the 60s taught planners to build downtown freeways.

I meant office developers and companies. Surrey can become another stack of condos no problem. But it can't be a downtown without a thriving office commercial sector, which has been the consistent problem in every other town center other than Vancouver proper.
Surrey is the 2nd biggest office developer after Vancouver in office space, but that's due to its large supply of industrial land, which tends to bring in office space as well.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

What are you using for height?
I'm using https://www.heywhatsthat.com/profiler.html and I got 23 feet rise and a 375 ft run (the profiler glitches out next to the viaduct and skytrain, so I had to make the run shorter and get the run off google earth manually.

The concourse is basically just used to store bicycles and Citadel is a residential street for Concord condos. Pardon me if I disagree with you here.

The rise glitched out too; 23' is 7.01m, and Beatty/Citadel's definitely higher than that.
If a number looks funny, I check it against a reference. For example, the Expo Line's right next to the viaduct; a SkyTrain is 3.125m/10'9" high, and the difference in elevation is at least two SkyTrains between the viaduct and the guideway alone.

You're not wrong about the concourse. But when the City's already intent on having Dunsmuir turn into a multimodal ramp, they're not going to suddenly opt for 2-4 lanes of one-way traffic that their engineers will likely say are costly and redundant (and they'd probably be right). Any further disruption of existing infrastructure is just another nail in the coffin.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Because my first example of JFK Parkway is a ring road. But it doesn't matter, my point stands.

Both Columbus and Birmingham have what are pretty much downtown freeways as much as the old Chinatown freeway plan was supposed to be, encircling the city core. The city planning schools in the 60s taught planners to build downtown freeways.

I meant office developers and companies. Surrey can become another stack of condos no problem. But it can't be a downtown without a thriving office commercial sector, which has been the consistent problem in every other town center other than Vancouver proper.
Surrey is the 2nd biggest office developer after Vancouver in office space, but that's due to its large supply of industrial land, which tends to bring in office space as well.

Manhattan also has 33-54% public transit mode share despite the road network. It's simply incredibly hard to drive in a busy city, so if we only have the money for transit OR highways, we should pick transit.

Well, you suggested that the size of a ring road scaled with the size of its city; I'm observing that this is not the case. For all intents and purposes, the TCH fulfills that role, bypassing the city proper and ferrying traffic through the suburbs to elsewhere in the province/country. At best, it just needs to be wider, and maybe easier to get on/off.

That's true - and Surrey's low level of development will probably continue to repel big businesses in the near future. But said low level does mean that there's room to grow once the city finally reaches its stride; I believe the other "satellite downtowns" also started out as condo parks before the corporations moved in.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The rise glitched out too; 23' is 7.01m, and Beatty/Citadel's definitely higher than that.
If a number looks funny, I check it against a reference. For example, the Expo Line's right next to the viaduct; a SkyTrain is 3.125m/10'9" high, and the difference in elevation is at least two SkyTrains between the viaduct and the guideway alone.

You're not wrong about the concourse. But when the City's already intent on having Dunsmuir turn into a multimodal ramp, they're not going to suddenly opt for 2-4 lanes of one-way traffic that their engineers will likely say are costly and redundant (and they'd probably be right). Any further disruption of existing infrastructure is just another nail in the coffin.



Manhattan also has 33-54% public transit mode share despite the road network. It's simply incredibly hard to drive in a busy city, so if we only have the money for transit OR highways, we should pick transit.

Well, you suggested that the size of a ring road scaled with the size of its city; I'm observing that this is not the case. For all intents and purposes, the TCH fulfills that role, bypassing the city proper and ferrying traffic through the suburbs to elsewhere in the province/country. At best, it just needs to be wider, and maybe easier to get on/off.

That's true - and Surrey's low level of development will probably continue to repel big businesses in the near future. But said low level does mean that there's room to grow once the city finally reaches its stride; I believe the other "satellite downtowns" also started out as condo parks before the corporations moved in.

I had a pretty long response planned out that was eaten by a power outage.
So here's the overall synopsis.
I found a source that claims the height is 15m (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...cts-development-plan-vancouver-1.4147313). So let's see... ~15/~167m (assuming Citadel Parade becomes a cul-de-sac) = ~9% grade. Definitely feasible. (way less than the 11% 200 St. grade).

The Streetcar, sir. Unless you can somehow operate Pacific at 4 lanes, that part of the corridor is doomed to face the exact same problems as streetcars everywhere else. A glorified, expensive bus more suited to RE speculators (as if we needed more of THAT) than an actual transit system. And this is a bottleneck, so it's not a place where it's ok to just cheap out.

I'm pretty sure we've already gone to this place before.

The planned Dunsmuir ped overpass appears to be 2 lanes wide (it's definitely not the width of the existing viaduct)- the width of Dunsmuir+ the Concourse and bike lanes. Measuring the entire Dunsmuir corridor at Stadium-Chinatown (incl. sidewalks) on Google Earth gives me ~28m, divided by 3.3 m (the accepted width for most modern roads), you get ~8.5. That means you could have not only sidewalks and bike lanes (2 lanes overall minimum) down Dunsmuir, but also 2 lanes of roads, and 2 lanes of the ped viaduct, and STILL have 2.5 lanes of room to splurge on some greenery and wider sidewalks.






Columbus, OH has freeways literally a block away from downtown. What?

I believe the other "satellite downtowns" also started out as condo parks before the corporations moved in.

[Citation needed]

If Surrey started out and densifies as Condo parks, the problem is that all the best land for commercial development get swallowed up before commercial development can really take off. Which in turn makes the area less attractive for commercial development.

Ultimately, who's right will only been proven by time. But Metro Van/GVRD has been trying this since the first RGS back in the 70s by defining 4 Town Centers where Jobs would be concentrated. http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/libr...nage-the-Growth-of-Greater-Vancouver.pdf

That part of the RGS didn't work, and Metro has been trying to fulfill that planner's dream ever since.

What was that quote about the definition of insanity?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I had a pretty long response planned out that was eaten by a power outage.
So here's the overall synopsis.
I found a source that claims the height is 15m (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...cts-development-plan-vancouver-1.4147313). So let's see... ~15/~167m (assuming Citadel Parade becomes a cul-de-sac) = ~0.9% grade. Definitely feasible. (way less than the 11% 200 St. grade).

The Streetcar, sir. Unless you can somehow operate Pacific at 4 lanes, that part of the corridor is doomed to face the exact same problems as streetcars everywhere else. A glorified, expensive bus more suited to RE speculators (as if we needed more of THAT) than an actual transit system. And this is a bottleneck, so it's not a place where it's ok to just cheap out.

I'm pretty sure we've already gone to this place before.

The planned Dunsmuir ped overpass appears to be 2 lanes wide (it's definitely not the width of the existing viaduct)- the width of Dunsmuir+ the Concourse and bike lanes. Measuring the entire Dunsmuir corridor at Stadium-Chinatown (incl. sidewalks) on Google Earth gives me ~28m, divided by 3.3 m (the accepted width for most modern roads), you get ~8.5. That means you could have not only sidewalks and bike lanes (2 lanes overall minimum) down Dunsmuir, but also 2 lanes of roads, and 2 lanes of the ped viaduct, and STILL have 2.5 lanes of room to splurge on some greenery and wider sidewalks.

15 metres confirmed (page 13). Again though, that's still a lot of assumptions and a lot of additional landscaping for just two extra northbound lanes, when City Hall finds it easier to just turn Dunsmuir into a biker/pedestrian ramp and have drivers use Georgia and Expo. I'll point out that current models have the new grid adequately handling current levels of traffic - now slightly declining - and that both City Council and the public want a High Line (which, mind you, would take up the entire street up until the park).

Honestly, I'm liking the Pacific streetcar less and less - especially now that the NEFC team wants it to be a mixed-traffic branch. I think an upgraded 23 would be better.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Columbus, OH has freeways literally a block away from downtown. What?

[Citation needed]

If Surrey started out and densifies as Condo parks, the problem is that all the best land for commercial development get swallowed up before commercial development can really take off. Which in turn makes the area less attractive for commercial development.

Ultimately, who's right will only been proven by time. But Metro Van/GVRD has been trying this since the first RGS back in the 70s by defining 4 Town Centers where Jobs would be concentrated. http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/libr...nage-the-Growth-of-Greater-Vancouver.pdf

That part of the RGS didn't work, and Metro has been trying to fulfill that planner's dream ever since.

What was that quote about the definition of insanity?

I don't follow. We're talking about ring roads and the relative size of their cities; Columbus has a ring road which is nowhere near its downtown, and could likely function just fine without the central freeways.

---

Oakland and Century City started out as offices, that's fair, but most of the growth came from new residents. Going back to Bellevue, the place was already somewhat big even ten years before Microsoft moved in - and MS started in Redmond, which is definitely not very dense or tall.
Surrey and Metrotown began as malls, and now they're getting new residents, new universities and new offices. They've had a slow start, it's true, but history is repeating itself.

As for space, even downtown Vancouver's still got room left over. I'm not worried about Surrey running out even in the far future.

[s211]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The Streetcar, sir. Unless you can somehow operate Pacific at 4 lanes, that part of the corridor is doomed to face the exact same problems as streetcars everywhere else. A glorified, expensive bus more suited to RE speculators (as if we needed more of THAT) than an actual transit system. And this is a bottleneck, so it's not a place where it's ok to just cheap out.

Ding ding ding!!!

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I had a pretty long response planned out that was eaten by a power outage.
So here's the overall synopsis.
I found a source that claims the height is 15m (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...cts-development-plan-vancouver-1.4147313). So let's see... ~15/~167m (assuming Citadel Parade becomes a cul-de-sac) = ~0.9% grade. Definitely feasible. (way less than the 11% 200 St. grade).

You may want to check your math there champ.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

You may want to check your math there champ.

Not math, a typo.

[West22]

Originally Posted by Klazu

That bike lane on Expo... Just how many parallel bike lanes do we need?

Whenever I hear this question I think "how many parallel car lanes do we need?"

The Expo bike lane is great - I use it every week to bike to soccer with my son and to get to Costco. I only wish the bi-directional portion extended at least as far as Costco/Stadium Station.

It is parallel to the Dunsmuir bike lane, but they are on different planes and serving completely different destinations to the West.

It is parallel to the seaside bike lane, but that lane is often at capacity and serves a different purpose.

In that stretch, I count 13 parallel car lanes (travel and parking) and three bike lanes. How many parallel car lanes do we need?

[s211]

Originally Posted by West22

How many parallel car lanes do we need?

Oh my gawd, did someone actually try to make that argument?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by West22

Whenever I hear this question I think "how many parallel car lanes do we need?"

The Expo bike lane is great - I use it every week to bike to soccer with my son and to get to Costco. I only wish the bi-directional portion extended at least as far as Costco/Stadium Station.

It is parallel to the Dunsmuir bike lane, but they are on different planes and serving completely different destinations to the West.

It is parallel to the seaside bike lane, but that lane is often at capacity and serves a different purpose.

In that stretch, I count 13 parallel car lanes (travel and parking) and three bike lanes. How many parallel car lanes do we need?

True, but that’s a terrible comparison. Parking doesn’t count, and Vancouver is the Downtown- those lanes pretty much connect to the rest of the entire city (minus those coming in from the south or North, which are less crucial/lane due to the east-west direction if the Fraser Valley).

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by fredinno

True, but that’s a terrible comparison. Parking doesn’t count, and Vancouver is the Downtown- those lanes pretty much connect to the rest of the entire city (minus those coming in from the south or North, which are less crucial/lane due to the east-west direction if the Fraser Valley).

parking on arterial's is ridiculous. Easy Park is owned by the CoV and as a condicition of development along an arterial developers should be required to build some amount of public-pay parking that Easy Park would manage to replace the meter spots on the arterial.

with the end game being that arterial's are used for the movement of people and goods, not for parking since that is a terribly inefficient use of that space.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

parking on arterial's is ridiculous. Easy Park is owned by the CoV and as a condicition of development along an arterial developers should be required to build some amount of public-pay parking that Easy Park would manage to replace the meter spots on the arterial.

with the end game being that arterial's are used for the movement of people and goods, not for parking since that is a terribly inefficient use of that space.

Yes 100%.