From Neil Salmond:
I just came across this golden nugget in Halcrow’s traffic forecasting report for the removal of Vancouver’s viaduct stubs:
Although past trends from actual counts show a decrease in automobile volumes, the model does predict an increase of just over 4% in vehicle-based travel as a result of land use growth. Even though past trends have shown a decrease in auto travel to and from downtown, the model predicts a slight increase. This is likely a reflection of the model not accounting for vehicle ownership which is low in the downtown area compared to other parts of the region.
Shouldn’t the model be updated so it is more accurate and reflect actual conditions and current trends?
For the umpteenth time, I have to say I am quite skeptical about the rosy picture that advocates of viaduct removal are painting. Also to repeat myself, this is not unlike wnting to remove one of the other bridges into the downtown peninsula, all of which carry similar levels of traffic volume – 40-50,000 vpd. Homeliness is not the same as not being worthwhile, or else quite a few of us wouldn’t make the cut, either! We can all agree on the former but the latter is where the bone of contention in this issue really lies.
Last I checked, it’s pretty hard to improve the surface streets running underneath the Cambie Bridge, for instance, to help carry more traffic, because there’s water under that bridges, not streets. Under the viaducts there is Pacific Boulevard, which will be rebuilt with better connections to Georgia Street, not to mention Terminal and First Avenue, which is usually where cars actually want to go rather than being dumped onto residential streets in East Van. It’s a completely different situation.
It’s good also to mention that the number of cars travelling on the viaducts has been decreasing for years and will continue to decrease whether they are torn down or not. There’s simply a better, more efficient use for that space. It’s not about utopian thinking, just practical economics of space.
Tessa – as one who lives on a street “below the viaducts”, I truly dread your kind of solution to this non-problem. I also ask, as a taxpayer, why “improve” – archaic word, that – other surface streets when the viaducts work just ducky, thank you. As for excess capacity due to declining traffic, if what you say is true, the conversion to bike lanes and other public amenities have been and can continue to be done. Placing front doors there, as has been done very well at the Georgia/Dunsmuir “apex” site, would also be a good way to go. All this, again, without tearing the East Van Bridge down.
I continue to believe this is an elitist aesthetic discussion and not a practical one.
Dear Vancouver of 2112… This is how it started… http://www.paulhillsdon.com/2009/01/23/mr-robertson-tear-down-the-viaducts/
Agreed that it’s an aesthetics issue.
I’l rather walk around a neighbourhood of short commercial buildings built around and under the existing viaducts (why traffic is separated far above), than have to negotiate crossing an 8-lane “super road” through a parkland dead zone.
But a park looks prettier on the planning drawings.
PS – TransLink will be building retail into the east stationhouse of the Main St. SkyTrain Station during its renovation. That retail will sit under the guideway. How novel!
âDepartment of Irony: Thats all very well in practice, but how does it work in theory?
« Price Tagsâ ended up being definitely compelling and
beneficial! In modern world honestly, that is really difficult to achieve.
With thanks, Lea