[COM] Victoria Square Upgrade - $24m

[omada]

Re: the Grote Street debate, they should just close if off, the traffic from Grote can go around the square - no need for an underpass or bridge, or all cross city traffic should be encouraged to use Grenfell Street, there is no need to have so many four laned "highways" running through the city! It really annoys me - the ACC change everything but the most important element to Victoria Square. All these "bells and whistles" (arbor etc) and all that is required is traffic management.

[Wayno]

Re: the Grote Street debate, they should just close if off, the traffic from Grote can go around the square - no need for an underpass or bridge, or all cross city traffic should be encouraged to use Grenfell Street, there is no need to have so many four laned "highways" running through the city! It really annoys me - the ACC change everything but the most important element to Victoria Square. All these "bells and whistles" (arbor etc) and all that is required is traffic management.

You have a choice:
a) Demand direct grote/wakefield traffic closure as a firm prerequisite - and have lobby groups shut down the entire project, or
b) Build the potential to permanently close the E-W thoroughfare into the design today. We'll get the improved square - and closure of the thoroughfare at some future point (might be near future or later)

Choose now!

[edit]oh, and i believe the E-W thoroughfare will be '1 car lane' wide in each direction. Buses only on the 2nd lane.

[Prince George]

[edit]oh, and i believe the E-W thoroughfare will be '1 car lane' wide in each direction. Buses only on the 2nd lane.

And IIRC, only buses will be able to turn right from the N/S lanes into this E/W corridor, not cars etc.

[Wayno]

And IIRC, only buses will be able to turn right from the N/S lanes into this E/W corridor, not cars etc.

correct!

[olliepee]

Spend some time at the South Rd / Cross Rd overpass and try to imagine that transported into Vic Square. Note how long the ramps on either end need to be and consider what that would be like on Grote or Wakefield street. Stand under the bridge section and listen to how much noise comes down from there.

I wasn't suggesting an overpass at all. That'd be hideous.

But like I said, couldn't it be a pedestrian bridge/hill? It could have grass/vegetation on top and have a smooth incline to provide a high up view of the amphitheater - you wouldn't even know you're on top of a road.

[flavze]

First make two lists: one, all the bridges you can think of; the other, all the bridges that people like to spend time underneath. Which one is longer, and by how much?

Spend some time at the South Rd / Cross Rd overpass and try to imagine that transported into Vic Square. Note how long the ramps on either end need to be and consider what that would be like on Grote or Wakefield street. Stand under the bridge section and listen to how much noise comes down from there..

how many of those bridges were designed to have people spend time under them? and include sound deadening designs?

There's always a first for something.

And it can't be a low bridge, as it still has to cross the traffic lanes and tram lines on either side of the square itself.

technicalities, pfft.
i never said it was a good idea, just an idea.

[flavze]

Spend some time at the South Rd / Cross Rd overpass and try to imagine that transported into Vic Square. Note how long the ramps on either end need to be and consider what that would be like on Grote or Wakefield street. Stand under the bridge section and listen to how much noise comes down from there.

I wasn't suggesting an overpass at all. That'd be hideous.

But like I said, couldn't it be a pedestrian bridge/hill? It could have grass/vegetation on top and have a smooth incline to provide a high up view of the amphitheater - you wouldn't even know you're on top of a road.

i was thinkin bout something similar to, i just threw the other idea in to see the response.
The only thing with a hill it would create a physical barrier between the two halfs of the square possibly more intimidating than a road.

[Omicron]

Cars have steering wheels. This means that, when faced by obstructions like public squares, malls or buildings, they can divert course to avoid these.

[rhino]

Cars have steering wheels. This means that, when faced by obstructions like public squares, malls or buildings, they can divert course to avoid these.

I was wondering what that was for.

[omada]

omada wrote:Re: the Grote Street debate, they should just close if off, the traffic from Grote can go around the square - no need for an underpass or bridge, or all cross city traffic should be encouraged to use Grenfell Street, there is no need to have so many four laned "highways" running through the city! It really annoys me - the ACC change everything but the most important element to Victoria Square. All these "bells and whistles" (arbor etc) and all that is required is traffic management.

Wayno wrote: You have a choice:
a) Demand direct grote/wakefield traffic closure as a firm prerequisite - and have lobby groups shut down the entire project, or
b) Build the potential to permanently close the E-W thoroughfare into the design today. We'll get the improved square - and closure of the thoroughfare at some future point (might be near future or later)

Choose now!

[edit]oh, and i believe the E-W thoroughfare will be '1 car lane' wide in each direction. Buses only on the 2nd lane.

I'd still say option a) lobby groups, smobby groups. I think there would be a danger that grote/wakefield will always split the square - at some point a decision must be made - why not now?

option b) - well there is no point continuing with the project, might as well not build the square - it is not addressing the problem.

[Waewick]

I guess we could just have 2 parts of the square linked with a overpass?

[Prince George]

I'd still say option a) lobby groups, smobby groups. I think there would be a danger that grote/wakefield will always split the square - at some point a decision must be made - why not now?

Because Harbison is Lord-Mayor. At the election that made him Mayor, the design of Vic Square became a political issue - Harbo ran on, and won largely because of, a guarantee that the E/W crossing would remain open. Until we have a new Mayor, it's simply not on the table.

[omada]

omada wrote:I'd still say option a) lobby groups, smobby groups. I think there would be a danger that grote/wakefield will always split the square - at some point a decision must be made - why not now?



Because Harbison is Lord-Mayor. At the election that made him Mayor, the design of Vic Square became a political issue - Harbo ran on, and won largely because of, a guarantee that the E/W crossing would remain open. Until we have a new Mayor, it's simply not on the table.

Well P.G if that is indeed the case, I wonder if the State Government can make this a "major project" and thus de-politicise this issue by effectively removing the role of local government from the project?

Come to think of it, I really don't know why we bother with local government most of the time (sorry to all the Councilors that frequent S-A, i'm sure you're all dandy folk)

[Nort]

Anyone who wants no roads crossing Victoria Square should support this plan as it is a perfect opportunity to show why that is necessary. The plan involves the crossing being closed for events that need it so through that many trials are being offered.

[spiller]

I agree, i'm not sure why people are making such a big deal out of this. Its a relatively small stetch of passage and there are already alternative routes in place. Closing it off permanently in the future is not a major issue or expensive excercise. On the flip side, for this entire proposal to be jeapordised because of such a small issue IS an issue, and a big one at that.