OP-ED: No Place for Viaducts in City

I could support removing the viaduct if in it's place a green belt park was built. Otherwise I don't support removing an effective way of getting in and out of downtown just to make developers happy and richer.

I'd be very interested in knowing what percent of the comments reflect city dwellers, in other words people who can easily access public transit or for $12, get down town by cab. I happen to live in the city by choice and I walk, bike, use transit, and own a vehicle so I consider my opinion one that represents many. I am sympathetic to those that can't or choose not to live downtown Vancouver but need to commute. the green approach is great for new projects, but occasionally it's ok to leave things well enough alone. It's an interesting idea, but costly and frankly I think the viaducts work especially for those that have to commute from the suburbs. Study it all you want during the Olympics, but it's not going to represent a typical day in rush hour vancouver. I think it reflects a citycentric way of thinking that doesn't take into account a large percentage of the rest of our Fraser Valley population. And c'mon people...one or two viaducts do not make us look like LA...that's like saying because we have a shoreline, we look like Hawaii!

concord pacific should buy the viaduct as it is and tear down and biuld houses becouse when they bought the expo land made so much money thar the city should tarnish the land becouse was a corruption deal we belive in dictetorship not democracy is all tarnished now by bad politicians one mane one rule no tax

While I think there is a lot of appeal in creating new neighbourhoods where the viaducts now stand, I am uneasy about the impact on the other arterials, especially 1st Avenue. It is already at capacity, and with the upcoming twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the expected resulting increase in commuter traffic on 1st Avenue, it is going to be severely impacted. Just imagine piling even more extra traffic onto it if the viaducts are removed.

While I do like what Vancouver offers, I know that driving pleasure is not one of these offers. All that the viaducts and Lions Gate Bridge offer is a shortcut to gridlock. If I have to go downtown, I take transit. No bumper to bumper traffic and no circling the block, or four blocks if you take one-way streets into account. If I need to get to the other side of downtown I use my maps to avoid downtown. I might be able to get to my destination faster cutting through downtown but I arrive so stressed out that the trip is nothing but a bad experience. Transit is the best way to go downtown. To go crosstown we need bypass roads which avoid downtown. We need better and faster ways of getting around the downtown area. We don't need more cars in the downtown area and I think that Vancouver should be looking at ways to limit private automobile travel in the downtown area.

I thoroughly endorse the idea of removing the viaducts. I have been a resident of Strathcona for 5 years and most recently living on Prior St. Frankly, the current configuration is dangerous to residents on my street. Despite a posted speed limit, most vehicles routinely exceed that limit. I have had several close calls with speeding vehicles almost wiping out my dog and I on visiting Strathcona Park. Currently the park is underutilized simply because people are afraid of the traffic. Give us back our neighbourhood and remove the blight of the viaduct.

They are here...they are useful...do not create more mayhem by taking them out.

You seem to forget that our city neighbours on West and North Vancouver and that a substantial part of the population of Vancouver lives and circulates on a daily basis in all three. Surprize: the world does not end at the edges of Yaletown! Thousands of people have to accomplish the trajectory of (for instance) East Vancouver to West Vancouver. Some smart person in a previous era of Vancouver planning installed the viaducts as a way to achieve that transit in a timely fashion in conjunction with the timed lights along Dunsmuir. If you want to do something progressive and far sighted, don't waste the money and energy to tear something down that's working. Keep it and make it better. Reconsider what types of transportation you want to have use the viaducts - buses, self-propelled vehicles, limited motorized vehicles etc. (Bicycle routes through residential neighbourhoods DO NOT work from the point of view of the residents, their children, pets, and wildlife trying to stay alive and in one piece. Speaking as someone whose quality of life has diminished living on one) As a life long Vancouverite I am overwhelmed on a daily basis at the explointation of this city by oportunististic developers and real estate investors. So no I don't get that warm fuzzy feeling when people talk about how much development could take place if we just took out those conduits that have the potential to continue affording access to people who need to get to or through downtown with their children, dogs, groceries, disabled or sick relatives or friends (ie when transit fails to serve). As long as public transit remains as unweildy, slow inaccessible, eclusive and expensive as it is, I will continue to need to drive those viaducts. And no, the second narrows is not an option at an additional 14 Kilometres per trip

Leave the viaducts alone. We do not have unlimited money to enter into any new mega projects, and we can not put up with any more road work and dislocation in this city; we are tired of it. I might add getting rid of the viaducts is a plain stupid idea.

On the surface this seems to me to be a purely developer inspired scheme. The removal at my expense as taxpayer will increase the land owners property values located adjacent to the viaduct. Does Geoff envision any benefit for the city in it's quest to provide social housing derived from the said development? If so, what are they? If not, why not and if not what conclusions will progressives draw regarding this Meggs initiatve? Perhaps Mr. Fletcher can talk to Geoff re: specifics in terms of benefits for the homeless presenty sheltered by the viaduct arising from the initiative.