Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure

[Carboy15]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The City is still planning for the ESP. It may be on the list after Kenaston and CPT. It's probably in the ~5-10 year timeline, as the north part of Devonshire Park residential development is underway and will probably take 5 years or so to build out. This will complete most of the residential in that area. There is land to the north of Grassie, east of future ESP, west of Plessis slated for future development.

It was all supposed to be collated into the ring road study, which is delayed.

And of course all highly dependent on funding, which is a major issue..

I don't think the Kenaston widening is happening at all. Never got an update about when the shovels will be in the ground. BTW, do you think building bigger roads means more traffic congestion? I actually learned that more roads adds more traffic, and public transit should be the future of transportation. Not bashing the ESP, Kenaston or CPT projects, but I'm not sure if traffic would get better or worse.

[bomberjet]

Kenaston and Chief Peguis will be or are undergoing an updated preliminary design study. There is no funding and no shovels planned for years yet.

And ya. The city should be investing more in transit instead of bigger roads for various reasons. Some roads are needed of course. But new widespread freeways seem to be a thing of the past in a lot of places.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Kenaston and Chief Peguis will be or are undergoing an updated preliminary design study. There is no funding and no shovels planned for years yet.

And ya. The city should be investing more in transit instead of bigger roads for various reasons. Some roads are needed of course. But new widespread freeways seem to be a thing of the past in a lot of places.

Where on earth (other than manitoba) have freeways become a thing of the past?

Amazing how people don’t realize how a couple well placed freeways could reduce traffic on many of winnipegs over congested arterial stroads, thus making transit more accessible safe and efficient for all winnipegers.

[bomberjet]

New major urban freeways are not happening like they were in the 60's and 70's for example. A lot of the stuff now is retrofitting existing roads, such as Hwy 16 in Edmonton and the attempted retrofit of Kenaston in Winnipeg are examples.

Ring roads were all the rage in the 2010's. Freeway systems like the interstate system will never die and are absolutely awesome.

The City of Winnipeg really needs to pick and choose what we spend our money on. Is widening Kenaston really the best use of $500 million plus dollars?

You think building a freeway will make transit better? It is the opposite. Making it 'easier' for people to drive makes transit less attractive.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Where on earth (other than manitoba) have freeways become a thing of the past?

Amazing how people don’t realize how a couple well placed freeways could reduce traffic on many of winnipegs over congested arterial stroads, thus making transit more accessible safe and efficient for all winnipegers.

at minimum Winnipeg should have two crosstown routes that are more or less freeways: Lag and BG/AM. Lag gets you fairly close to downtown and is the ideal candidate for upgrade. Just because we want to make transit more attractive doesn't mean we should let traffic congestion worsen. At least we should have infrastructure befitting a city of our size. I mean, QC has freeways and is building a light rail....

[bomberjet]

Winnipeg has no money for either, never mind both. We just keep going in circles.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Winnipeg has no money for either, never mind both. We just keep going in circles.

How do other cities get stuff done? What makes us so unique that we aren't able to fund projects to the point that our infrastructure for transit and regular automobiles is behind that of most cities our size? Again, there's a need for all modes, gotta start getting things done to an acceptable level.

[bomberjet]

Very good questions. haha Why can't we git shit done.

Winnipeg delayed infrastructure spendings for many decades.
Winnipeg bowed to the NIMBY's.
More recent times, Winnipeg has been bad at planning forecasts. Including budgeting and obtaining federal dollars from the various special programs that other municipalities have used.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

How do other cities get stuff done? What makes us so unique that we aren't able to fund projects to the point that our infrastructure for transit and regular automobiles is behind that of most cities our size? Again, there's a need for all modes, gotta start getting things done to an acceptable level.

Unfortunately for us, other cities have a property tax that went up as inflation did and wasn't frozen for a long period of time. Pair that with successful fire and police union bargaining at a key time and now almost half our budget is spent on that.

It's too bad that frozen taxes was a platform that caught the hearts of enough cheapskate Winnipegers decades ago that we're still feeling the effects of it and it really is looking like we can't even choose between arterial roadway infrastructure expansion or improved rapid transit. We can't afford either, and so even if the current leadership asked for federal and provincial funds the city would struggle to come up with its share.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

How do other cities get stuff done? What makes us so unique that we aren't able to fund projects to the point that our infrastructure for transit and regular automobiles is behind that of most cities our size? Again, there's a need for all modes, gotta start getting things done to an acceptable level.

People don't want to hear it, but the reason we "don't get as much stuff done" compared to other cities is simple: we don't tax enough at the municipal level in two ways:

1) Property taxes: As a whole, Winnipeggers spend ~1.8% of their after-tax income to property taxes. The average across other large cities in Canada is 2.1%. If we increased our property taxes such that we taxed closer to the Canadian average as a share of after-tax income the City would have an additional ~$100 million in property tax revenue every single year. To put things in perspective, our road renewal budget is around $160 million per year and our community services budget is around $120 million per year. Think of how many operating and capital improvements we could accomplish if those budgets were nearly doubled.

2) Development charges: Every major city in Canada (aside from Winnipeg) and almost every major municipality in Manitoba surrounding Winnipeg has development charges for new development. This allows municipalities to collect revenue from new housing and businesses to help offset the infrastructure costs associated with accommodating that growth. Winnipeg doesn't have that option because the impact fee in its previous form was struck down in court, and while the court did confirm the city has the authority to implement a properly calculated fee, there is currently no political will to do so. The result is that Winnipeg has seen rapid growth and has to fund infrastructure to accommodate said growth, but gets little revenue in return to offset the cost. So with limited budgets, new infrastructure in growing neighborhoods has to be funded by service cuts or forgone capital investment in existing neighborhoods.

Nobody wants to hear this, but these two facts make it clear why Winnipeg has such an acute infrastructure deficit and has difficultly maintaining what it has, nevermind adding new assets. Don't get me wrong, every Canadian city is feeling the strain on their aging infrastructure and no one (except for maybe Calgary) feels as though they have "enough money" to meet the needs of the public, but in Winnipeg, politicians have kept property taxes low and development charges non-existent to appease the voter base in exchange for aging and crumbling infrastructure - a foolish tradeoff that is coming back to bite them.

[Carboy15]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Just because we want to make transit more attractive doesn't mean we should let traffic congestion worsen. At least we should have infrastructure befitting a city of our size. I mean, QC has freeways and is building a light rail....

At least Winnipeg isn't within the top 100 cities in the world with the worst traffic congestion, but building more freeways could only bring the congestion higher. It's better if BRT could expand and make that more attractive as it would create less air pollution than cars do. BRT isn't as good as LRT in terms of speed and time, but BRT could be a temporary solution. LRT could come in the future, but wouldn't come anyways not only because of money, but as the population is smaller than 1 million, it may not be worth it. But one day when the cost can justify it, maybe the BRT transitways could be converted to LRT.

However, there is no one size fits all to traffic congestion, but there's ways we could reduce it. And I am not sure if adding more lanes to existing roads will make it go faster. Maybe a problem could be lack of grade seperations. Expensive too, but may help a bit.

[bomberjet]

Last post from me on this topic. I work in this field, and the City has generally been not good with planning large scale projects, as you may know.

Contingencies held are very high, inflating estimates and funding requirements (Ie: Southwest Transitway went from $590 mil to ~$400 mil).
Scope of work is very out of whack with what is actually required (ie: the interchange proposed at Marion and Archibald).
And the funding schemes they have just do not allow for a large amount of these major projects. The City has an issue (or fear) of coming up with money to match the feds and Province.

The Province has done decently well with the large scale projects in recent times, also as we know. But the funding source is mostly debt. This is where the City is at it's limits. We don't have the cash because it's spent on things like Police union.

[ColdRain&Snow]

The traffic in Winnipeg isn't that bad, as long as every road isn't under construction at once. The city used to spend on $30 million per year (about 10 years ago) on road maintenance, now they're spending about $165 million per year. Our roads became very deteriorated due to low maintenance spending for many years, and now we're spending tons of money all at once to try catch up on road maintenance, hence the bad traffic this summer.

The $500 million dollars it costs to widen Kenaston is not worth it and will not solve traffic. It won't even make a dent in traffic for 80-90% of drivers in this city (who live nowhere near Kenaston). That $500 million dollars would be better spent fixing the roads (potholes slow down traffic a lot in my experience), 24 hour construction on major roads, adding a few more turning lanes here and there, and running more buses. No need to reinvent the wheel, no need for huge mega-projects. Just start with fixing/improving what we already have and then go from there.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Kenaston and Chief Peguis will be or are undergoing an updated preliminary design study. There is no funding and no shovels planned for years yet.

And ya. The city should be investing more in transit instead of bigger roads for various reasons. Some roads are needed of course. But new widespread freeways seem to be a thing of the past in a lot of places.

Like???

The city lacks a proper functioning arterial road network, Chief Peguis to Route 90 is a start!

You can't call any roadway in Winnipeg a freeway, not even close!

Getting traffic off streets not designed for the amount they see now should be a priority.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Very good questions. haha Why can't we git shit done.

Winnipeg delayed infrastructure spendings for many decades.
Winnipeg bowed to the NIMBY's.
More recent times, Winnipeg has been bad at planning forecasts. Including budgeting and obtaining federal dollars from the various special programs that other municipalities have used.

The bit about getting fed funding is intriguing to me. Are we really a lot worse at getting our shit together to access that money? Or do we just have the eternal classic Wpg pessimism and negativity/inferiority complex.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Carboy15

At least Winnipeg isn't within the top 100 cities in the world with the worst traffic congestion, but building more freeways could only bring the congestion higher. It's better if BRT could expand and make that more attractive as it would create less air pollution than cars do. BRT isn't as good as LRT in terms of speed and time, but BRT could be a temporary solution. LRT could come in the future, but wouldn't come anyways not only because of money, but as the population is smaller than 1 million, it may not be worth it. But one day when the cost can justify it, maybe the BRT transitways could be converted to LRT.

However, there is no one size fits all to traffic congestion, but there's ways we could reduce it. And I am not sure if adding more lanes to existing roads will make it go faster. Maybe a problem could be lack of grade seperations. Expensive too, but may help a bit.

Edmonton and Calgary had LRT when their populations were lower than ours now.

I'm not suggesting we bulldoze neighbourhoods to all of the sudden create a freeway paradise for commuters. I think part of what we need to recognize is that we need to have relatively high functioning forms of transportation for all modes (active, rapid, and motor vehicles). There's a good reason to have an alternative for crosstown traffic, especially getting heavy truck traffic off surface streets and roads like Provencher and St. Mary's, that really should be kept for more local uses. If we could offer a viable alternative, and one that was more efficient, we could improve the liveability of a lot of streets. AT needs love too, having adequate bike paths is good, but also designing streets that are friendly to cyclists. If we could remove stroads from the equation by giving traffic a way to bypass neighbourhood streets like those mentioned above, that would help too (also stop designing streets that are inappropriate for their setting and stop insisting on crazy setbacks that are hostile to the human interaction with a neighbourhood). Lastly, transit. Invest in transit that is convenient and useful for more people. This will reduce dependance on automobiles, which is good. It will also reduce some congestion along high demand corridors. What it is not meant to do, is replace the automobile entirely. There is a place for all modes. Look at any major european city to realize that freeways are not antithetical to, and rather are quite necessary for the economies of cities these days.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Edmonton and Calgary had LRT when their populations were lower than ours now.

I'm not suggesting we bulldoze neighbourhoods to all of the sudden create a freeway paradise for commuters. I think part of what we need to recognize is that we need to have relatively high functioning forms of transportation for all modes (active, rapid, and motor vehicles). There's a good reason to have an alternative for crosstown traffic, especially getting heavy truck traffic off surface streets and roads like Provencher and St. Mary's, that really should be kept for more local uses. If we could offer a viable alternative, and one that was more efficient, we could improve the liveability of a lot of streets. AT needs love too, having adequate bike paths is good, but also designing streets that are friendly to cyclists. If we could remove stroads from the equation by giving traffic a way to bypass neighbourhood streets like those mentioned above, that would help too (also stop designing streets that are inappropriate for their setting and stop insisting on crazy setbacks that are hostile to the human interaction with a neighbourhood). Lastly, transit. Invest in transit that is convenient and useful for more people. This will reduce dependance on automobiles, which is good. It will also reduce some congestion along high demand corridors. What it is not meant to do, is replace the automobile entirely. There is a place for all modes. Look at any major european city to realize that freeways are not antithetical to, and rather are quite necessary for the economies of cities these days.

Man, I hate that we don't have LRT. We are THE train city. Whole neighbourhoods of this town have lived and thrived with the rails. I like the BRT as a pragmatic approach to our funding challenges but wouldn't it be nice if the Feds provided a bigger slice of the transit pie than $80,000,000. Peanuts to build out a proper LRT. A little favour sent Manitoba's way, call it "decarbonizing" Manitoba's capital for the spin.

[Biff]

If Winnipeg was serious about building LRT there would be the appropriate level of Federal funding for it. The issue is we only every talk or do studies on it.

[bomberjet]

Here's an article with 10 examples of plans for urban freeway removal.
https://www.cnu.org/highways-bouleva...t-futures/2023

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Here's an article with 10 examples of plans for urban freeway removal.
https://www.cnu.org/highways-bouleva...t-futures/2023

An interesting article. Some of the proposed freeway removals are low volume spur routes (I-787 in Albany); which make sense. The title is somewhat misleading as some of proposals are to sink and cap freeways; not remove them. (ie: I-35 in Austin).

In Canada, current and recent new urban freeway construction which immediately come to mind include:
- Calgary Ring Road
- Team Gushue Highway in St. John's
- NS-107 in Halifax
- Regina Bypass
- ON-401 in Windsor