.
In October, Vancouver City Council will be considering whether to move ahead with replacing the viaducts.
Come learn more about the past, present and future of the viaducts at a special event, featuring guest speakers:
- Shirley Chan, loocal community advocate
- Clark Manus, previous chair of San Francisco’s Mayoral Citizen Advisory Committee that helped reclaim and transform the Central Embarcadero area
- Brian Jackson, General Manager of Planning, City of Vancouver
This is a ticket only event.
To learn more on the viaducts work visit www.vancouver.ca/viaducts
.
- October 14
- 6 – 9 pm
- Science World – 1455 Quebec Street
Should be interesting.
Scanning the referred report, yet another red flag has gone up for me: Carrall Street between Keefer and False Creek is proposed to be converted to “park” and/or “active transportation”. Removing this segment from the shared traffic grid will further negatively impact livability on my street (Abbott), even without adding the millions of additional square feet at the waterfront. And Geoff Meggs and staff wonder why I fret over this plan. There is simply no good in it for my ‘hood.
On a related matter I would consider Carroll street to be the worst physically separated bike lane in the city every time you get to a intersection you have a 50% chance of a conflict with bike/car.
+1 on this … it is a perfect example of where following *most* of the AAA guidelines isn’t sufficient … that the eventual design can be worse! (Richards Street has moments of this)
On that note – does anyone have contact information for the engineering department where comments about this kind of thing can be made? (to an ear which might listen)
I did a search and it looks like you can email bikevancouver@vancouver.ca
at least according to this page.
http://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/biking.aspx
I think if you want input into the post-viaducts plan that might be a different contact. But you could let both know your needs.
And I agree about the Carrall intersections. We know so much more now how to do it. I also don’t like how the grade is the same as the sidewalk meaning people inadvertently walk on the cycle path.
I’ve seen that contact … but also wondered if, like many generic email addresses, it’s not really paid attention to. I’d feel better, in general, if someone knew a name to at least CC whilst emailing the bikevancouver address
Apart from email to bikevancouver@vancouver.ca, you can call 311 for specific issues, and request a call back. You can also cc the Active Transportation Policy Council (ATPC), see the city web site for the email.
If you are writing to the City on these issues, consider a cc to HUB Cycling’s local Vancouver UBC committee at Vancouver@bikehub.ca. HUB is regularly presenting positions to the City on infrastructure issues, including the viaducts, and there is an opportunity to be involved in that effort. It is a good way to help make your voice heard. Current consultations include SW Marine, the South False Creek seawall and bypass, the 10th Ave bike route, and numerous spot improvements (recently Adanac and Renfrew, as well as the Burrard and Pacific project).
I also would highlight that in this viaduct replacement plan Carroll street will be redesigned anyways so those terrible intersections should get fixed eventually.
Eventually is years away when there are cheap redesign (glue or screw-down rubber blocks … North Vancouver is using them to create cheap traffic circles – I thought Gordon wrote about them at some point but I can’t find the link) options to dissuade cars from cutting the corner …
Considering I’ve been at an intersection numerous times and never hit a bike or a car, I’d say that’s probably not true.
I mentioned conflict, I have not been hit either. What I find is the design encourages cars to wait/block the bike lane when they are waiting to find a time to turn right.
It’s happening, whether you think it’s good for your ‘hood or not. Anyone reflexively opposed should reconcile themselves to this eventuality. The question is, what constructive elements can opponents bring to the new design? There is still room for compromise and input on the new level road. Its cross section is not yet set in stone.
And on the Georgia Ramp, and new active bridge.
Please don’t consider me reflexively opposed. Far from it. As a former COV urban designer c. 2004 I happily explored the removal of the viaducts with other staff. Then the Olympics happened. The local traffic here became significantly higher with adverse impacts on livability. I’ve since changed my mind. Again, this is without the 7 million or whatever square feet of new development even being built.
A lot of new development is going to happen at the waterfront, whether or not the viaducts are removed. Encouraging those new residents to use active transportation and transit will help, as otherwise they will be driving. Including on Abbott St.
Lots of good in this plan IMO.
Jeff. – that’s my point. There will be a lot more traffic at grade, yet we are being told that things will be improved over the present situation. Adding viaduct traffic to local surface streets cannot make things “better”, at least not in my understanding of the word. Further, closing off Carrall Street will not help, as that will significantly reduce choice of routes that are presently available, further adversely impacting livability and safety Abbott Street.
A recent audit notes that the intersection of Abbott and Pender has a significant number of auto/pedestrian collisions. Further the COV ode count study notes that same intersection (100 block west Prnder and 500 block Abbott) had the two highest percentage increases in peds in the entire downtown area, almost 200% growth between 2008-2013. It is a very popular pedestrian corridor. I fail to see how ped and bike safety can be improved by forcing ALL north-south traffic onto the one remaining local street in the area.
Correction: ped count, not ode count. Sheesh.
I don’t think all ped and bike traffic will be forced onto Abbott, just a portion of the north/south vehicle traffic in that area (the rest will be on Beatty and Quebec, I presume). Peds and people on bikes can use the Carroll park greenway, or protected bike lanes on Quebec.
What is improved in my mind is the network connectivity. At present, the viaducts represent a second road system, and you can’t get from one to the other. By putting it on one level, we can distribute traffic to where it wants to go, and not force it down a limited number of roadways as at present.
I live just a bit further west down Pacific, and think it will be a big improvement. Especially compared to if the development that is all ready to happen goes ahead without any street improvements. The network studies show that there are small delays in vehicle travel time for the new route, but that is before the new building all takes place. The new network has better performance than the current network when growth is factored in.
Desktop Health Impact Assessment by Golder and Associates 61 pages / North East False Creek Transportation Study 108 pages; not one word on carbon emissions.
On page 10 in section 3.1.1 the report mentions carbon monoxide and volatile organic carbon. I have not read the entire report but that is at least mentioned from a health point of view.
The Transportation Study report also references Transportation 2040, which lays out the objectives for transportation planning in the city, and the Greenest City Action Plan, which targets greenhouse gas reductions. Lots of discussion of environmental impacts there.
“North Vancouver is using them (rubber blocks) to create cheap traffic circles ”
Let’s not rush to traffic circles without understanding the risks of that form of intersection. See the Cycling In Cities studies out of UBC.
I didn’t suggest to create traffic circles, I suggested that the method by which the traffic circles are created could provide a good and cost efficient way to make a reportedly dangerous (I think I have heard sufficient anecdote about this specific set of intersections that in this case it should amount to data) intersections safer – doing essentially exactly what the city has done in concrete at intersections along the Dunsmuir bike route at several downtown intersections, but using the cheaper material.
The better solution would be to redo the intersections to degree, but as mentioned, the chance of this is slight, so the next best thing is to make dangerous behavior harder to do.