Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

The Official Transit Thread


nitronuts

Recommended Posts

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health...article1322296/

Where you live affects your chance of obesity

Researchers from the University of Utah also found that residents of Salt Lake City who lived in neighbourhoods built before 1950 were leaner than people who lived in more modern communities.

Older neighbourhoods were thought to protect from obesity because they were built with pedestrians – not cars – in mind. They had more trees, more sidewalks, more intersections, and offered a pleasant walking environment.

Such findings suggest it may be possible to halt and reverse the epidemics of obesity and Type 2 diabetes by modifying the environment in which we live. This is a good long-term public-health strategy, but it won't protect you in the meantime.

Still waiting with anticipation for some evidence from some of you guys for your position. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think neighbourhoods built before 1950 were very dense.

Did you read the article or just the blurb I posted?

It's saying older neighbourhoods were built with people in mind, not cars. And now new neighbourhoods, those planned for the car have more people with health issues because they drive everywhere.

This goes to my whole point about sprawling suburbs and the health impacts and costs they incur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read the article or just the blurb I posted?

It's saying older neighbourhoods were built with people in mind, not cars. And now new neighbourhoods, those planned for the car have more people with health issues because they drive everywhere.

This goes to my whole point about sprawling suburbs and the health impacts and costs they incur.

Ya, it pretty much said "go outside and walk or do some exercise and stop eating out so much/eat healthier if you don't want to be fat." I don't need a news articles to tell me that. I was simply stating that housing developments before 1950 weren't very dense. They are of the same sprawling suburbs that you hate so much. They just have trees and sidewalks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, it pretty much said "go outside and walk or do some exercise and stop eating out so much/eat healthier if you don't want to be fat." I don't need a news articles to tell me that. I was simply stating that housing developments before 1950 weren't very dense. They are of the same sprawling suburbs that you hate so much. They just have trees and sidewalks.

Well I'm glad you're so informed about the negative health costs associated with suburban sprawling life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UBC Buses re-routed during Olympics and Paralympics

http://www.webcommunications.ubc.ca/ubc201...g/transit-plan/

Basically, the biggest change is that Wesbrook Mall, the street with the 41, 43, 49, 480, 25, and 33, will be closed off for pedestrians at the T-bird Arena. Boy, would I hate to see how this all works after students return to school, but the paralympics are still on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/10/16/TearDownViaducts/

Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

Removing leftover chunks of freeway could transform part of the city.

By Geoff Meggs, Today, TheTyee.ca

On or about Feb. 12, 2010, security personnel preparing for the 2010 Olympic Winter Games will close the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts, shutting down the last elements of what city fathers once believed would be a massive inner-city freeway system.

The freeways were defeated in the 1960s in an all-out citywide debate that saved Chinatown and Strathcona and turned Vancouver away from the destructive development embraced by so many American cities. But the two viaducts remain, pumping traffic through eastside neighbourhoods and bisecting what could be a new, sustainable North False Creek neighbourhood in the heart of the city.

Now, at last, the Olympics will close them. When other cities picked the car in the 1960s, Vancouver picked community, neighbourhoods and sustainability.

The Olympic shutdown, as well as pressure for development on the north side of False Creek, challenges us to ask if it's time to make that choice again. Are the viaducts pointing to the future or holding us in the past?

San Francisco's experience

If an earthquake shook the viaducts down, would we rebuild them? If our future looks better without them, should we continue to assume they must remain?

San Francisco confronted this question when the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake knocked down the Embarcadero and Central Freeways. Although voters had just rejected a 1986 plan to tear it down, fearing gridlock, drivers soon adjusted to its absence. The Embarcadero's removal in 1991 revitalized the city's waterfront: part thoroughfare, part parkway and part park, it began to revive a neighbourhood damaged from decades of neglect triggered by the freeway.

A redesigned False Creek road system, without the viaducts, could transform today's landscape of asphalt and freeway pillars into a new neighbourhood. Up to five city blocks -- each with the potential of another Woodwards project worth hundreds of millions of dollars -- could be freed from the concrete and opened up for people.

Idea backed by architect Bing Thom

That's why many of the city's leading planners and architects keep returning to this problem as major developments around False Creek move forward.

YES, TEAR IT DOWN

Vancouver area blogger Paul Hillsdon uses historical photos and maps in making his own case for demolishing the viaducts. Find his post here.

Notable among them is architect Bing Thom, who gathered expert engineering and traffic analysis that supports the feasibility of removing the viaducts, as well as the potential revenue that could flow for taxpayers.

This new neighbourhood would not only connect Yaletown, Chinatown, City Gate and the Downtown Eastside with each other, but opens the door to a careful long-term planning process for the East False Creek Flats, the city's last major brownfield development opportunity. How planners and engineers solve the complex road and traffic issues on the Flats –- with its rapid transit, passenger and freight rail links as well as its incredible development potential –- will have an impact on neighbourhoods all the way to Boundary Road. But any solution is likely to be second-best if we fail to test the options for the viaducts first.

Vestiges of a rejected freeway

The viaducts remain a dark force in an otherwise blossoming downtown. Despite the 1968 decision against freeways, they continue to shape the development of the city. No major development around or on the north False Creek lands can go ahead without confronting the viaducts, with their massive bulk, traffic and noise. Notable among them is Bing Thom, who has commissioned expert engineering and traffic analysis that supports the feasibility of removing the viaducts, as well as the potential revenue that could flow for taxpayers.

A case in point is a report expected to come before council on Oct. 22, when Vancouver city council will consider proposals for a major increase in density around BC Place, GM Place and the Plaza of Nations. These new developments, if approved, would be in addition to long-anticipated projects by Concord Pacific on the remaining Expo Lands, adding thousands of new jobs and residents to the area. For residents on all sides of northeast False Creek, who have been waiting a long time for a promised Creekside Park in the middle of the area, this is all disturbing news.

It seems to them that parks and other amenities generated by Concord's plans may also be forced to meet the needs of the new residents in other projects. The park will be asked to bear a bigger load even before it is built. Park development will only come when two conditions are met: Concord is ready to develop two parcels on the future park's western edge and the province has delivered on its commitment to clean up contaminated soil. Could the park design being changed achieve a better community resource, reduce the cost of clean-up and move forward the day it is built? There is compelling evidence it could, but planners still have their backs against the wall formed by the Georgia Viaduct.

Explore the options

Infrastructure like the viaducts can't be discarded lightly. New road connections would be needed. But the purpose of infrastructure is to support sustainable development, not hold it back. The viaducts are the remnant of a road strategy citizens rejected 40 years ago, but they remain in place, reducing Vancouver's opportunities to grow. A council decision on the northeast False Creek proposals doesn't need to wait for the fate of the viaducts to be resolved.

But the Olympic closures are a good time to ask some basic questions.

Do the viaducts help us ensure a better future for Vancouver?

Or is it time to replace them with something better?

Photos of the potential roads/land now usable here: http://www.paulhillsdon.com/blog/2009/01/2...n-the-viaducts/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The illustrations of what the replacement would be were not working in your link.

The only thing I would have agaisnt it is if they put in the downtown street car, there will be no overpasses over it with the viaduct gone. If the streetcar gets busy, it would create quite the barrier on that side of town.

Now, I don't mind it so much for getting into town, but perhaps it could be reconfigured to work more at getting traffic out of town. Perhaps look at only removing the inbound portion of the viaduct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...