andyt wrote:
City of Vancouver is part of Translink, it can't do it's own thing on transit. Not sure I'm in favor of a streetcar system, haven't heard much about about that. The only thing was Susan Anton's non-starter about reviving the what, 2km of streetcar they had during the Olympics at huge cost.
You're right, the viaducts have been studied to death. Tear them down, remove that blight from the neighborhood. Actually I'd be sad to see them go, because I frequently use the bike lane on the westbound viaduct that leads to Dunsmuir. Sweet. But I'm sure they'd put in bike lanes in the surface streets that would replace the viaducts too.
The 2km portion was supposed to be the start of a grid that would go all the way around False Creek and throughout the south and eastern portions of downtown Vancouver. Something like 8km of trackage going from Granville Island through the OV to Science world, through Gastown into Coal Harbour, with future expansions to Stanley Park, Yaletown, etc.
Now about the Viaducts, I'd hardly call them a blight to the neighbourhood. Firstly, which neighbourhood? The entire area south of the Viaducts is an open space that Concord still hasn't developed yet. At least half the area is supposed to be a park, but Concord wants more area allotted to development so as to increase profits. It's also supposed to be majorly commercial development, which is another reason why Concord refuses to develop. They owe something like 3 million square feet of commercial space to the city, based on previous development contracts, and thats the last tract of land they own downtown to build on.
As for the Viaducts directing traffic onto Pender, if you eliminate them, it wont change much. There will be some benifit for those on Pender, but any traffic heading eastbound out of downtown will just take another side-street through the Strathcona neighbourhood. No matter what, traffic going to and from downtown will keep on going to/from downtown. I think Canada Line is a prime example of how increasing transit use and decrease car use. Destroying perfectly good infrastructure wont. It'll just put all those cars onto the currently quiet and pedestrian-friendly surface streets. There are enough vehicle-pedestrian incidents as it is, putting more cars down there would surely just increase the number.
Even if it became total grid-lock at rush-hour, hardly a pleasant pedestrian experience, and how would the surface-street bus routes run efficiently then? I'd also like to see you cycle safely down there in those conditions. Unfortunately not every street has room for bike lanes. Measures should be taken so that every street that doesn't have room for bike lanes at least has calm enough traffic to allow for safe cycling. There are two ways to do this. One is to lower speed limits. The other is to keep the viaducts as they are, syphoning vehicle traffic to/from downtown away from the local side streets in the east end.
Granted, the viaducts do have their downsides. They direct traffic onto Pender through the middle of Strathcona, effectively cutting the neighbourhood in 2. They also are relatively unsightly. I'd say many Expo Line stations are even worse, but that's beside the point. Last, they do act as a psychological barrier for pedestrians.
Solving problem number 1 is simple. Build the Malkin connector.
This would put the majority of downtown traffic onto Malkin ave, which is much better suited to handle traffic to/from downtown then Pender. It also goes through an industrial area instead of a residential neighbourhood, making a much lower impact on livability. it would also make for a quicker commute too and from East Vancouver, Burnaby, and the freeway. While this may not seem like a benefit to those "waging war on cars," one should consider why they don't like cars in the first place: A shitty pedestrian experience and pollution. By virtue of going through an industrial area, problem number 1 is nullified. Problem number 2 is also solved here. The less time a car spends idling at red lights, stop and go traffic, etc. the less time it is on the road. The less time it is on the road, the less time it is spewing gases into the atmosphere. Now, logic follows that where you make a quicker commute, more people will follow. But being as how the car-commuter rates are already declining, mostly because of transit, it makes sense that if you build another transit line out east (Hastings Extension!!!) that the majority of people will opt to continue using or switch to using transit to commute downtown.
Problem number 2 and 3 are a bit more difficult to solve, but only because they will take time. The idea is an easy one, integrate development into the viaducts.
Doing it like they did with the Spectrum and Firenze towers by Rogers arena is one possible idea. Another is to look at how Granville Island was developed, literally under a bridge. Personally I favour the idea of a pedestrian-oriented strip mall running the length of both, with super-dense, low cost residential developments between the viaducts. I think these would be a very neat urban experience. You could make them as bright and well-lit as you want, even at 3am, and you'd never have anyone complain because you are under the viaducts. You would also never have to worry about wind, rain, or snow spoiling the pedestrian experience. The low-cost housing would provide a home to thousands of people who work in the area who couldn't necessarily afford to live downtown otherwise. It would also guarantee instant use of said pedestrian malls and transit, especially if residential parking development is even more limited than it already is downtown. The current limit is something like 0.7 spaces per unit, drop it down to 0.4 or 0.5.
Now, with a pedestrian mall development under the Viaducts, the viaducts are no more an unsightly blight to the neighbourhood or a psychological barrier, they become a part of the neighbourhood, if not the anchor that draws pedestrians to it.
CKA Elite 
