From CBC News:
In a statement announcing his party’s traffic platform for the November civic election Tuesday, LaPointe promised to “ease our city’s gridlock and get back to allowing different types of transit to co-exist peacefully rather than be at war with each other.”
To do that an NPA government will introduce counterflow lanes (like those on the Lions Gate Bridge) for major arterial routes; build an “affordable” Broadway subway; increase capacity immediately on the 99 B-line bus route; and promote safe bikeways “that have community backing”.
In the 1997 Vancouver Transportation Plan passed by the NPA Council of the day, the first key strategy was this:
“so as not to increase road capacity …”
Further on:
.
(1) Given that the increase in one-way flows can be about a thousand vehicles per hour per lane, how could counterflow lanes not be considered an increase in capacity?
Are the 1997 transportation policies no longer those of the NPA?
.
(2) Will the counterflow lanes facilitate the movement of suburban traffic through the city and into the central core, reversing the downward drop in volume of traffic into the city overall and, in particular, onto the Downtown Peninsula, which now has volumes equivalent to about 1965?
.
.
(3) How will the downtown core be expected to accommodate this increase on non-counterflow streets?
.
(4) Will priority lanes connect with the strategic investments of the Province – namely on 1st Avenue connecting to an expanded Highway 1, and on Oak Street connecting to an expanded Highway 99 and the Massey Bridge?
.
(5) Will the neighbourhoods through which the increased volumes move be asked for their “community backing,” similar to the expectation for new bike lanes?
.
If Prior Street is chosen for a contraflow lane, it will presumably have a capacity of three lanes in one direction at peak.
.
(6) Does it then make sense for the Dunsmuir bike lane to be removed in order to allow for a continuation of a three-lane flow …
.
… in order to avoid a break to the three-lane capacity on Dunsmuir Street:
.
(7) What are the implications for the removal of the viaducts, given that this action is likely dependent on a reduction of traffic volumes currently using them? Is removal now off the table?
.
(8) Given the complexity and expense of counterflow lanes in situations with cross traffic, left-hand turns and street parking, do you have an example or model of a city where counterflow lanes not on freeways, through tunnels or on limited access roads with few or no left turns (like Georgia) have worked?
.
____________________________________
Responses
PT welcomes responses from the candidates. To the above, here is a response from NPA councillor candidate Rob McDowell (following a conversation I had with him):
Kirk wanted me to assure you fully that there will be no change to the Transportation Plan under his watch and that the NPA remains FULLY committed to that policy.
The initiative announced Tuesday was a policy to study how we can use the existing network more efficiently. No one appreciates sitting on a bus tied up in congestion, and costs relate to goods movement are also impacted by delays.
We can use our existing infrastructure more efficiently for ALL modes of transportation. However, it is key that this would be approached with the goal to reduce our collective carbon footprint. .
.
Questions for …?
This series is open to PT readers who would like to submit questions to candidates about their platforms. (Send to pricetags at shaw dot ca).
I don’t think Prior is a bottle neck at any time of the day, so you wouldn’t need countflow there no matter what. The intersection of Beatty and Dunsmuir has way less capacity that any other in that corridor due to left turning traffic blocking half the through lanes. Venables and Clark is the bottleneck going the other direction.
As much as I like the NPA (most of the time), and I like road infrastructure I really think counterflow lanes are a crap idea. They’re not very safe in an urban setting (when you can accidentally turn into the wrong lane), they require lots of money to be spent on lighting, and they generally clutter up the landscape.
Perhaps Kirk should have focused more on dedicated turn lanes at major intersections. Even at the cost of a through lane, turn lanes make a big difference. They get rid of irregularities and allow smoother flow.
This one has caught me by surprise…where did this idea come from? Seems bizarre. The only places where we have a traffic problem in the city are the aforementioned routes out to the freeways. I agree that efficiency here is important for Vancouver’s continuing ability to function as the primary economic centre of the region. So Oak street, Grandview highway, Clark Drive maybe…But I couldn’t envision them working at many other locations. 1st ave would require ripping up a landscaped boulevard…this is the centrepiece of the npa’s transportation strategy? Doesn’t seem to be very well thought out. Seems to be a strategy that suburban commuters into the city would benefit from, but I don’t see how it benefits the residents in the neighbourhoods directly.
It seems strange that Rob McDowell is talking about people sitting on buses being the beneficiary of counter-flow lanes. That’s not who this is designed for. It’s for cars. If they want to truly speed up the bus commute and increase the efficiency of the network, they would add bus only lanes.
Secondly, it seems even more bizarre that he’s claiming this policy will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It might make one trip slightly more efficient, but any policy that will encourage more people to drive places more often will result in an increase in carbon dioxide emissions.
This proposal frankly makes no sense.
Yes, this has become a insidious meme that’s taken hold in both the Green Party and the NPA. A way of acting like you care about the environment without having to ask people to change their lifestyle.
The idea that increasing road capacity can possibly decrease GHG emissions is clearly laughable. Increased capacity will be quickly filled by additional commuters.
Two things reduce GHGs emitted by cars: more efficient cars, and fewer cars on the road. A city that cares about our environment should be focused on the latter.
I expect it from the NPA, but I’m really disappointed the Green Party has jumped on the “reducing congestion” bandwagon.
You’ve clearly never run for public office. It makes perfect sense to pander vaguely- informed- sounding ideas to a predominantly layman electorate. This is no sillier than vowing to “end” homelessness. Good luck with all that.
It makes sense to install counterflow lanes on select streets such as Granville, 4th, commercial, Broadway etc
It makes no sense to allow unmitigated development such as at UBC or Granville at 70th without any transit improvements !!
It also makes no sense to not add pedestrian zones say on S-Granville or Robson.
It makes no sense to disallow counterflow lanes without new subways, say under Broadway as slow buses are unacceptable too.
Vancouver needs more visionary. A city in decline due to poor leadership and excessive catering to vote buying.
Time for a change.
Kirk is a fresh breath of air but needs to add the words ” road tolls”, ” pedestrian zones” and livability to his vocabulary !
Counterflow lanes are for crash test dummies.
Depends on the lights above it. Seems to work very well on Lionsgate bridge and/or Massey tunnel, and will work well eventually on Granville, Broadway, Commercial or other throughfares currently intentionally clogged by a leftist anti-business council.
Speaking of left, would you remove all of the left turn lanes along the new counter flow routes? They would appear to conflict with counterflow lanes, and your two examples are notable in that they don’t have many.
Yes you have to remove many left turns, say on Granville or Broadway.
Is the NPA also prepared to come clean on its previously stated intention to rip out the changes to Point Grey Road? Will they or won’t they; just “YES” or “NO” please, no equivocation.
Didn’t you get the memo? By invoking “consultation”, a party is immediately freed from all previous statements and has no responsibility to take any specific policy positions.
Susan, the NPA is not prepared to be unequivocal with respect to Point Grey Road because politically it is a no-win for them. I have asked Kirk this question directly and received only waffling as a response. I don’t believe that they would actually rip up the road (contrary to their previously stated intention, as you correctly note), however I also don’t believe that they would continue with the planned improvements between MacDonald and Alma either. I think part of the problem is that Lapointe has inherited a bunch of Affleckian baggage on this issue that it is hard to distance himself and the party from.
I would like to give the NPA a chance, as I have always voted NPA in the past, but for me, completion of this parkway trumps all other issues, and their silence/waffling on this is a big red flag. So I will hold my nose and (for the first time in my life) vote Vision because at least I know where they stand.
Where’s the vision in Vision Vancouver besides being anti-business and “green” at all costs (whatever that means) ?
Interestingly, I went back to take a look at the PlaceSpeak site that was started as an anti-bike lane lobbying outlet by Spice Lucks. Not much new there these days, however I did see a poll asking:
Should Pt. Grey Road have been closed?
– Yes
– No
– 1-way only
With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, over 50% of respondents voted “Yes” on this. Funny, that!
Pt Grey Road is a done deal. Let’s move on to other topics PLEASE. We need more Pt Grey roads in Vancouver, not less. But we also need car oriented arterials to get traffic moving.
We need BOTH !
I don’t understand why you say we need more car oriented arterials. It has long been said that the worst type of street is a stroad, a mix between a street and a road. But does a road actually belong in a city?
Robert Moses ensured that all traffic moved through manhattan when he built NYC’s highway system. Now, we have discovered that the type of road that is best suited for cars, limited-exit freeways, actually cause sprawl and result in even greater congestion. I am essentially saying that we should gradually close down all of our arterial streets, and actually prevent traffic from moving freely. A radical idea indeed. Please tell me where my logic is at fault.
I think the biggest bottlenecks are southbound flows to Oak St. Bridge and to Knight St. Bridge. Unfortunately, neither bridge is under City of Vancouver control, so the counterflow would have to cease at the bridge, which would create another bottleneck.
West Georgia also backs up westbound to Lions Gate Bridge, but already has a counterflow lane (and bottlenecks down to 2 bridge lanes).
It’s the merges that create delays – so adding a counterflow and subsequent merge won’t help matters.
.
Speaking of prior street, a both visionary and common-sense (NPA) idea would be to rip off the viaduct, close down prior street completely, and establish malkin Ave. as the main arterial. Malkin Ave. has for a long time been on the city’s plan to be included in the MRN, but the connection to clark has never been built. The street is extremely wide, and already sees a fair share of truck traffic.
Replacing the viaducts by building new roadways and associated infrastructure at grade on a flood plain when sea levels are rising is a rather stupefying idea. The viaducts have over 40 years of service life remaining, a timeline well with-in rising sea flood predictions for the False Creek Basin. GHG emissions resulting from deconstruction / reconstruction / and new forms of gridlock only exacerbate efforts to slow environmental impacts caused by cars. All in all this inane idea of city building is a perfect example of climate change denialism.
Extremely wide? Do you ever go down this street? do you know how many semis are backing into loading bays all day long? It’s also very curvy, blind corners in a few spots. Also, it already connects to Clark via raymur and Parker. seriously, drive or bike (it has no sidewalks, so i don’t recommend walking) down Malkin, then review your comment. thanks
Malkin Connector has long been planned but has never been built. As I have said, and you confirmed, there is already a fair bit of truck traffic. Malkin is superior to prior because it doesn’t divide Strathcona Park from Strathcona. Prior street really is an awkward speedway in the middle of the community. http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/309065/vancouver-mayor-gregor-robertson-wants-malkin-connector-proposal-on-table-before-viaducts-decision/
Prior is currently a multi lane express road with cars zipping down from the viaduct, not the safest environment. When the viaduct is removed, traffic will be reduced significantly. There are very reasonable alternatives in Terminal Ave, Great Northern way, and Cordova.
Malkin is indeed curvy, but so is clark/knight, prior/venables, victoria/commercial etc. Parking can be removed on one side, and speed limits lowered. Malkin is no Prior, but when Prior is closed, malkin will sustain local traffic that previously used prior.
Ok, you need to spend some time in the area. First of all, Malkin is already 30km/hr around the park. This is the end of the park that people actually congregate in, it is where the community gardens are, baseball diamond, playground. The fields that border prior are just that. Malkin also passes by Vancouver animal control. You appear to be underestimating the current traffic on Malkin. Yes there are trucks, but there are alot of semi trailers. A lot. And none of the streets you listed have semi trailers blocking the entire street while they position their vehicle at a loading bay, just inside a blind corner. This quite often results in the semi horizontal across the entire street making small adjustments for a few minutes. Cars already will try to go around the moment they have a chance, except it is impossible to see what is on the other side. Prior is one lane with the parking lane on the north side open from 7:00 – 9:30, south side 3:30- 6:00 so it is somewhat disingenuous to say it is a multi lane highway. Speed limit is fifty, and if they were so inclined they could put speed bumps in although they don’t seem to want to do that anymore.
You mention Cordova. Now might be a good time to mention that traffic flows both ways on prior so I’ve never seen the one way Cordova put forward as a solution but again, you are increasing traffic in a vulnerable neighbourhood, as with Hastings. Great northern is a ways from prior and dumps you in that main/2nd/Quebec disaster. I implore you to go down to Malkin and check it out in the daytime and really think about what 40,000 cars per day looks like on the surrounding streets.
One last thing. The fire station is on prior.
Closing prior makes sense. 1) Traffic has decreased significantly entering downtown. 2)There are more than four viable alternatives to prior (cordova/powell, hastings, 1st, great northern), especially considering most of the traffic using the viaducts/prior comes from clark drive, and north burnaby/coquitlam. 3)There is even huge community support for closing the street to speeding traffic. Enough said.
http://strathcona-residents.org/files/2012-07-07-Prior_Proposal-FINAL.pdf
page 29: http://vancouver.ca/docs/eastern-core/viaducts-study-summary.pdf
Jenables: you might want to look at Vancouver’s long range plan before you act as though Kyle Z just made this stuff up. It’s been a longstanding plan of the city to divert traffic to Malkin and build a viaduct. That said, I think with the viaducts gone, such a plan is no longer necessary.
This is the third time I’ve tried to reply; hope this one works. You seem to be misrepresenting the position of the SRA. My understanding is they support viaduct removal ONLY on the condition that prior street is traffic calmed. (not closed) however, if the viaduct s came down and Pacific linked to prior, they would be worse off. You haven’t addressed or refuted any of my points about Malkin so at this point I will assume that is because you don’t have answers. The SRA also understands building the Malkin connector would demolish a portion of the community gardens, and nobody wants that. (as I pointed out earlier) Vancouver animal control aka the pound is across Raymur so they would be negatively affected as well by a Malkin connector. If you took the time to go down to the area before lecturing me on what it needs, we’d probably have a much more productive conversation, kyle. Again, you are suggesting increasing traffic around Vancouvers most vulnerable population with two of your suggested routes, and the other two would be like me suggesting that cambie street bridge is just as good an option to get into downtown as burrard if you live in kits. Tessa, try responding to what I’m telling you about Malkin St instead of lecturing me on Kyle’s behalf. 40,000 cars per day is a reality that idealism won’t convince me will disappear. The situation on prior is not ideal for the residents but they have every right to be wary of the city because their situation could worsen, not improve.
Did either of you read the eastern core study?
Thanks for superimposing the 2010 traffic volume to the downtown on 1960 and 1976 levels. As it demonstrates, congestion is already less than in 1976 thanks largely to the development of Vancouver’s rapid transit system beginning in the mid-1980s. Removal of the viaducts and other proposals re access to the downtown – current civic policy in 2040 transportation plan – would take this one step further.
Will there be an easy-west train along or under Hastings to Burnaby instead ? Where will the traffic move to ?
Removing people or goods moving road infrastructure is fine if there are alternatives. What are they ?
Well it would add 40,000 cars per day to Pacific, Hastings (where we just lowered the speed limit, for safetys sake) and maybe Powell. Quebec/terminal/ first and great northern would likely increase and they are already bad! I also imagine the calmed streets of strathcona would suffer an increase. just for more towers? No thanks!
Indeed, for every action there is a reaction somewhere else.
What’s much more likely is that, as has happened from San Francisco to Seoul, many people would choose other options, from transit to cycling, and thus fewer cars overall would travel the roads. Many of the rest would travel up to Georgia along Pacific, where there would be a new intersection and a much more logical entrance to downtown, easing traffic on Main Street and, more importantly, Powell Street, and eliminating the need to spend tens of millions on a viaduct at Malkin.
Tessa, the viaducts alone don’t change the fact that it takes many people who don’t live in Vancouver twice as long by transit.. depending on where you live it can take an hour and a half one way or longer… ironically, a lot these people probably used to live in Vancouver and maybe did take transit, walk or cycle but they got priced out of their city. Perhaps the evergreen line will change that. What will they travel up to Georgia on? A massive ramp? That’s a fairly steep escarpment. Georgia is one way at the east end and gradually adds lanes further west. It also has a lot of pedestrians. How would it ease traffic on main? Or Powell? I’m trying to understand why you think removing the viaducts would ease congestion in the streets it passes over. You also aren’t mentioning that it will be a new sea of towers, all with five floors of underground parking, and while the buildings won’t be fully occupied you can bet some of the inhabitants will drive. The Malkin viaduct would remove a large portion of the strathcona community gardens in strathcona park.
Tolling the viaduct or every major east-west route @ $5 and $10 in rush hour per direction would ease congestion. Today we pay with time, and to reduce congestion one has to pay with cold hard cash. Raise tolls until congestion disappears. Pretty simple solution.
Unclear why no mayor wants to say that. Car use or shall I say access by car in/to downtown Vancouver and along major throughfares or bridges/tunnels is far too cheap.
With the extra cash we could then build faster dedicated bus lanes or subways. To get on a bus it has to be faster and less expensive. Today it is less convenient and slower, so car use will prevail until that changes !
Property taxes in MetroVan are also far too low. If we doubled them, and gave income tax paying folks a sizeable credit on their annual income tax return we would not only collect more money but also monetize non-residents seemingly insatiable desire to buy fancy condos or houses in MetroVan.
Property taxes, foreign real estate ownership, rising houses prices and associated flight to the cheaper burbs and congestion are all related.
The status quo needs change. Which mayor or council will do that ?
If the viaducts were called a “bridge”, like the 4 others linking the downtown peninsula to the rest of Vancouver and the region, I think this conversation would have a richer and more nuanced tenor and political attention by candidates for office. Removing the Cambie, Granville, Burrard or Lions Gate is unthinkable. Why do people feel that removing the Georgia/Dunsmuir Bridge is acceptable, given all the costs to citizens and impacts to be born on the adjacent communities? All for, yes, a large array of yet more condo towers walling off (!) False Creek from those same communities.
Amen Frank. They are bridges! Demolishing the Viaducts is a stupefying idea when one considers that new roadways will have to be built to new floodplain standards placing them above surrounding roads, and further that transportation consultants predict longer commute times for transit routes. It all adds up to an environmental disaster that will make a mockery of Vancouver, The Greenest City on the Planet.
If the area of False Creek under the Cambie and Granville bridges had been filled in over the past 100 years or so, and now had roads and buildings under the bridges, there would be an equally good reason to remove those two bridges. Fortunately, the creek wasn’t filled in.
Yes, there are costs to removing the viaducts. But there are also benefits, and not just to developers who may want to build towers. Turning Prior back into a street instead of a speedway would be one. Assembling land for social housing would be another. Providing better transit routes would be another. Removing the barrier between Chinatown and False Creek would be another. Expanding the site of the future Creekside Park expansion would be another. Accelerating the construction schedule of that park as part of any development plan would be another. Making Georgia a main entrance to Vancouver from that side of town would be another.
Please don’t use the tired ruse of an expanded park as a rationale. That park should have been delivered decades ago. It is a civic embarassment that it hasn’t. Also, the modest change of dropping either or both of the ramps down to grade west of Main Street would permit the opportunity for creating social housing or usable open space on the freed-up land east of Main.
The Malkin route could be implemented today if there was political will, thus allowing Prior to being restored to its proper and former role as a local street. The issue of a very visually intrusive sloping bike ramp of 100s of metres in length is still not resolved in an adequate way and perhaps never can be, given the height differential of the escarpment.
The bike route on Dunsmuir was proposed by the consultants as a bone for Mayor Robertson. He needs to get something!
The Georgia Viaduct could fly over Prior and land on and continue on to Clarke.
The ground in this area is toxic and will end up capped with concrete. Hardly a park!
Traffic consultants predict gridlock including slower travel times for buses on Hastings.
Do not believe the “visualizations”, things will not end up this way and they never illustrate traffic jams..
The City of Vancouver is the largest landowner in the City. The Property Endowment Fund owns plenty of sites on which to build affordable housing, but it won’t be affordable in this location due to high development costs.
But they aren’t bridges. There is nothing under them that requires them. Removing the Cambie and other bridges wouldn’t make sense because there’s large bodies of water under them. Calling them something they aren’t just to make them feel like something doesn’t make any sense.
They are the remnants of an elevated freeway that was never built. Why don’t we call them that.
Nothing under them but some very polluted soil, which is capped. i maintain the area has been kept ugly for a reason. Considering Concord can make a large amount if money off the status quo and pay no tax and have people rallying for their cause because it looks ugly, i don’t expect that to change. Fyi Don, the original viaduct was built in 1915, and it did indeed have a purpose as there is a very high escarpment, the link is just as valid as any of the other bridges.
“All for, yes, a large array of yet more condo towers walling off (!) False Creek from those same communities”
So, if I understand correctly, you don’t like tall buildings walling off False Creek from communities to the north, but it is good for tall roads to do so. Got it.