Manitoba Highways

[esquire]

^ Regent and Lag is tight but it does look like there's enough room for a SPUI in there.

[Winnipegger]

As great as it is to talk about whether or not the City has land set aside to build interchanges along the ring road, the sad truth is that there simply is no plans or money to build anything of the sort within the next 10 years.

The City likely won't even be able to afford to extend Chief Peguis within the next 10 years unless something significant happens or there is major capital project re-prioritization due to political interference. But with the current budget woes, we can barely maintain what we have this year never mind extending or increasing traffic throughput.

[Curmudgeon]

^ Canada needs a massive infrastructure program funded by all levels of government, not a few million here and there, but a program on the scale of $100 billion+., including investments in high and higher speed rail as well.

As for Winnipeg, as some people on this forum have said over and over, there is the very immediate issue of emergency services budgets being completely unsustainable. They have to brought back to closer to 25-30% of the budget, rather than the current c.45%, with the proportion continuing to increase.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

^ Canada needs a massive infrastructure program funded by all levels of government, not a few million here and there, but a program on the scale of $100 billion+., including investments in high and higher speed rail as well.

As for Winnipeg, as some people on this forum have said over and over, there is the very immediate issue of emergency services budgets being completely unsustainable. They have to brought back to closer to 25-30% of the budget, rather than the current c.45%, with the proportion continuing to increase.

I don't bemoan them for trying to do well for themselves but you're right, we need a major reality check. I bet that the amount of money saved by bringing them more in line with averages would build one interchange per year. That would be amazing. Or hell, build another km of RT every year. Pretty soon you have a comprehensive network

[Curmudgeon]

Winnipeg's budget is approx. $1.1 billion, so 15% of that represents $165 million.

[esquire]

Manitoba has spent boatloads of money on infrastructure in recent years, but so much of it was spent on infrastructure outside of the city, or on non-transportation related projects.

-Floodway expansion
-East side road
-Lake St. Martin outlet channel

That's not even getting into the Hydro-related projects.

[bomberjet]

That's a lot of money for everybody. Think of all the programs that could be funded every year with that money. And we could get transit, roads, paths whatever done with the rest!

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Winnipeg's budget is approx. $1.1 billion, so 15% of that represents $165 million.

165 million would build a pretty decent interchange or a couple simpler diamond ones.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

^ Canada needs a massive infrastructure program funded by all levels of government, not a few million here and there, but a program on the scale of $100 billion+., including investments in high and higher speed rail as well.

As for Winnipeg, as some people on this forum have said over and over, there is the very immediate issue of emergency services budgets being completely unsustainable. They have to brought back to closer to 25-30% of the budget, rather than the current c.45%, with the proportion continuing to increase.

The main issue is that while the budgets of the City's safety departments is disproportionately large compared to other departments (including Public Works), those departments successfully bargain for wages that are in-line with national averages.

The end result is that safety budgets (primarily driven by wages) typically go up at national average rates, while property taxes have, for the most part, increased at less-than-average rates (and were frozen/decreased in the late 90's, 2000's). So as safety budgets go up at average rates and revenues go up at less-than-average rates, they eat away at other department budgets.

I don't think Winnipeggers fully understand just how austere the City is in most departments, and how lean everything is running. Demagogues like Broadbeck and Pallister (and to some extent, some users on this forum) paint pictures of local administrations being bloated and wasteful, when really they know nothing about municipal finance or how the City operates. Decades of property tax freezes and marginal increases have left us with revenues that cannot sustain a growing city, and so we continue to put off major projects until some unspecified time in the future when in reality, they will never get done unless the politics of this city changes.

Under the current circumstances, I remain pessimistic about the City's ability to increase roadway capacity, transit capability, and the general maintenance of our parks and urban infrastructure. The main priorities of our population as reflected in city council is to have a safe city with low taxes. That's what the priority has been for the past 20 years and that's what it will continue to be, and we've lowered our standards for public amenities in the meantime.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

The main issue is that while the budgets of the City's safety departments is disproportionately large compared to other departments (including Public Works), those departments successfully bargain for wages that are in-line with national averages.

The end result is that safety budgets (primarily driven by wages) typically go up at national average rates, while property taxes have, for the most part, increased at less-than-average rates (and were frozen/decreased in the late 90's, 2000's). So as safety budgets go up at average rates and revenues go up at less-than-average rates, they eat away at other department budgets.

I don't think Winnipeggers fully understand just how austere the City is in most departments, and how lean everything is running. Demagogues like Broadbeck and Pallister (and to some extent, some users on this forum) paint pictures of local administrations being bloated and wasteful, when really they know nothing about municipal finance or how the City operates. Decades of property tax freezes and marginal increases have left us with revenues that cannot sustain a growing city, and so we continue to put off major projects until some unspecified time in the future when in reality, they will never get done unless the politics of this city changes.

Under the current circumstances, I remain pessimistic about the City's ability to increase roadway capacity, transit capability, and the general maintenance of our parks and urban infrastructure. The main priorities of our population as reflected in city council is to have a safe city with low taxes. That's what the priority has been for the past 20 years and that's what it will continue to be, and we've lowered our standards for public amenities in the meantime.

The ever increasing share of the budget is unsustainable. For 2019 the police budget increase is 3.4%, for fire/paramedic up 4.2% and for corporate up 8.4% (what are corporate expenditures anyways, and why are they rising at quadruple the rate of inflation?), all of these increases well above the rate of inflation and an increased share of the budget. The result is that infrastructure spending will decrease, in a city with a huge infrastructure deficit that will only increase substantially once infrastructure dating from the 50s and 60s begins to require renewal and replacement. Coming soon folks!

Emergency services now account for 45% of all expenditures. There are absolutely and without doubt efficiencies that can be obtained. Also, the city must insist that Winnipeg does not require wages and salaries to be in line with national averages as the average wages here are lower than the national averages as are living costs. A solid middle class is not only essential to a functioning and thriving economy, it is also essential to a democracy, but peace officers earning six figure salaries is an absurdity. Here the balance has fallen out between ensuring workers' interests and protecting the public interest, similar for example to 1970s Britain. . And the argument is that everyone would quit and move to Edmonton or Kitchener is absolute hogwash. As to what Winnipeggers want, I hear a lot wanting better transit, better roads and better parks, while complaining that we do not need a police helicopter.

Dismissing others' knowledge is patronizing and you end sounding apathetic, oh well, when emergency service are 60% of the budget at least we'll be safe. Most people aren't as concerned about safety as you would be led to believe by persons with a specific agenda. The political will has to be found, or perhaps the solution likes in the dismantling of Unicity, which in so many ways has been a abject failure.

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

The ever increasing share of the budget is unsustainable. For 2019 the police budget increase is 3.4%, for fire/paramedic up 4.2% and for corporate up 8.4% (what are corporate expenditures anyways, and why are they rising at quadruple the rate of inflation?), all of these increases well above the rate of inflation and an increased share of the budget. The result is that infrastructure spending will decrease, in a city with a huge infrastructure deficit that will only increase substantially once infrastructure dating from the 50s and 60s begins to require renewal and replacement. Coming soon folks!

Emergency services now account for 45% of all expenditures. There are absolutely and without doubt efficiencies that can be obtained. Also, the city must insist that Winnipeg does not require wages and salaries to be in line with national averages as the average wages here are lower than the national averages as are living costs. A solid middle class is not only essential to a functioning and thriving economy, it is also essential to a democracy, but peace officers earning six figure salaries is an absurdity. Here the balance has fallen out between ensuring workers' interests and protecting the public interest, similar for example to 1970s Britain. . And the argument is that everyone would quit and move to Edmonton or Kitchener is absolute hogwash. As to what Winnipeggers want, I hear a lot wanting better transit, better roads and better parks, while complaining that we do not need a police helicopter.

Dismissing others' knowledge is patronizing and you end sounding apathetic, oh well, when emergency service are 60% of the budget at least we'll be safe. Most people aren't as concerned about safety as you would be led to believe by persons with a specific agenda. The political will has to be found, or perhaps the solution likes in the dismantling of Unicity, which in so many ways has been a abject failure.

Well said. I beleive winnipeger is probably a city employee. Nice fat salary, nice fat pension, and if on the police force a nice 6 figure salary, and only having to put in half the years as a regular person works before they can attain pensions is absolute stupid. Everyone should be working to 65-67. And i know how the police force works. My sister is on the force. So is her husband. Taking over 225K per year. Like ffs......

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

The ever increasing share of the budget is unsustainable. For 2019 the police budget increase is 3.4%, for fire/paramedic up 4.2% and for corporate up 8.4% (what are corporate expenditures anyways, and why are they rising at quadruple the rate of inflation?), all of these increases well above the rate of inflation and an increased share of the budget. The result is that infrastructure spending will decrease, in a city with a huge infrastructure deficit that will only increase substantially once infrastructure dating from the 50s and 60s begins to require renewal and replacement. Coming soon folks!

Emergency services now account for 45% of all expenditures. There are absolutely and without doubt efficiencies that can be obtained. Also, the city must insist that Winnipeg does not require wages and salaries to be in line with national averages as the average wages here are lower than the national averages as are living costs. A solid middle class is not only essential to a functioning and thriving economy, it is also essential to a democracy, but peace officers earning six figure salaries is an absurdity. Here the balance has fallen out between ensuring workers' interests and protecting the public interest, similar for example to 1970s Britain. . And the argument is that everyone would quit and move to Edmonton or Kitchener is absolute hogwash. As to what Winnipeggers want, I hear a lot wanting better transit, better roads and better parks, while complaining that we do not need a police helicopter.

Dismissing others' knowledge is patronizing and you end sounding apathetic, oh well, when emergency service are 60% of the budget at least we'll be safe. Most people aren't as concerned about safety as you would be led to believe by persons with a specific agenda. The political will has to be found, or perhaps the solution likes in the dismantling of Unicity, which in so many ways has been a abject failure.

Of course the ever increasing share of the budget is unsustainable, the City has been talking about it for years now and nothing has been done because no one has the balls to stand up and reign it in.

Except for your statement about corporate expenditures being up 8.4%, which I'm not sure what you are talking about. The City of Winnipeg's 2019 preliminary operating budget shows that Corporate Finance's budget increased by about $15,000 or 0.12% (less than 1%), so I'm not sure where you are getting 8.4% from.

But other than that, you are correct in saying that the the safety budgets are unsustainable, but I don't think you understand how the bargaining process works for Safety departments. They don't get wage increases based on how wages are changing in Winnipeg at large, they get wage increases based on how Police/Fire/Paramedic wages are changing across Canada. So it doesn't matter how much we say "Well 3% wage increases in Toronto are all fine and dandy, but the average Winnipegger only gets 1% so Winnipeg Police should only get 1%" - that's not how the bargaining works unfortunately, and that's not the fault of the City administration either. Do you think the City administration wants to keep shoveling unprecedented amounts of cash in to those departments while roads and sidewalks crumble and transit riders demand better service, grass remains uncut, and it takes 8 months to paint roadway lines? Of course not, but with union bargaining your hands are often tied and union wages are more likely swayed by national trends than local ones. And as unfair as that is, there really isn't much that the City itself can do about it.

I by no means support the fact that safety takes up as much of the budget as it does - it's come at the detriment of the rest of the City. But the cold hard truth that many Winnipeggers refuse to face is that when you combine a low property tax environment with a high salaries in safety departments that are dictated by national trends in other cities that have had much more significant property tax increases, it doesn't take long for an imbalance to occur. And when all is said and done, on a per capita basis Winnipeg takes in the least amount of revenue and also spends the least amount of revenue, per citizen. The end result is what we see today - sure, taxes are low, but everything else is falling apart. Is that really what we want? Because it seems to me that the prevailing popular opinion is that the public service should "just become more efficient" and "beg the other levels of government for more funding" as opposed to doing what we really need to do (if we want better services): raise property taxes.

There's not much room for improving a city if you bring in the lowest amount of revenue, per capita, out of all major Canadian cities. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either enjoy your fiscally prudent, low tax-low service environment, or alternatively be willing to pay more for improved service. The amount of people working for the City on a per-capita basis is already significantly lower than it was in the 1990's, and most FTE gains have been in the safety departments. So safety departments aside, your not going to get a much more leaner public service than you already have now in the civic government. If that's what the population wants, then great, that's the choice they can make. But people can't demand more services without being willing to pay more. It's like asking for a large pizza instead of a small, but only wanting to pay for a small pizza - the restaurant owner would tell you to get lost.

Originally Posted by Bluenote

Well said. I beleive winnipeger is probably a city employee. Nice fat salary, nice fat pension, and if on the police force a nice 6 figure salary, and only having to put in half the years as a regular person works before they can attain pensions is absolute stupid. Everyone should be working to 65-67. And i know how the police force works. My sister is on the force. So is her husband. Taking over 225K per year. Like ffs......

Dang, you caught me red handed. Oh well, off to hand out some speeding tickets in the school zone while I wait to retire in 2 years from now and collecting a $180k/yr pension on YOUR DIME.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

.........Except for your statement about corporate expenditures being up 8.4%, which I'm not sure what you are talking about. The City of Winnipeg's 2019 preliminary operating budget shows that Corporate Finance's budget increased by about $15,000 or 0.12% (less than 1%), so I'm not sure where you are getting 8.4% from.

.......And as unfair as that is, there really isn't much that the City itself can do about it.

...... high salaries in safety departments that are dictated by national trends

........It's like asking for a large pizza instead of a small, but only wanting to pay for a small pizza - the restaurant owner would tell you to get lost.

I know breaking up your post might take away from context but I wanted to respond to specific points without becoming too lengthy.

From the city's 2019 preliminary budget, corporate expenditures are estimated to be $80.0 million in 2019, compared with $73.8 million in 2018, an increase of $6.2 million or 8.4% I'm not exactly clear on what these expenditures are, and I'm perplexed as to why whatever they are, the increase is four times inflation and far higher than revenue increase.

What do you mean council can do nothing about it? There's no requirement that salaries/wages be dictated by national trends. A competent civic government would never allow the tail to wag the dog. If that will never be a possibility then I want my part of the city to secede (maybe join with the neighbouring municipality, in my case we would form a nice-sized city of 65 to 70,000 population with a fairly decent population density as well) and operate a successful municipal government that balances spending priorities. If, according to you, Winnipeg's hands are tied and there's nothing that can be done, then the City of Winnipeg in its current form is no longer functioning and needs to be broken up .

I'm not one for analogies in general, but no, it's more like a restaurant owner raising prices year after year well beyond the rate of a customer's wage growth, and the customer deciding that they can no longer afford to buy pizza from his restaurant because they also have to pay a mortgage, utility bills, pay for gas and bus fare and everything else, and there's only so much money for pizza in the budget. For the analogy to make any sense, we have to assume that the restaurant is the only one in town.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

From the city's 2019 preliminary budget, corporate expenditures are estimated to be $80.0 million in 2019, compared with $73.8 million in 2018, an increase of $6.2 million or 8.4% I'm not exactly clear on what these expenditures are, and I'm perplexed as to why whatever they are, the increase is four times inflation and far higher than revenue increase.

If you are referring to the "sub-total corporate" line on page 200 of the City's 2019 Preliminary Budget, you are correct in that it increased from $73.5 million in 2018 to $80 million in 2019. However, as you'll see on this page, corporate expenditures are city expenses related to debt and finance charges, taxes it pays to other levels of government, insurance and damage claims, contributions to transit, and other things (mainly revenues taken from certain reserves, hence the negative number). You will see that the significant 8.4% increase is primarily driven by two things, the first which is increased debt and finance charges - the city has to borrow more money to fund capital projects due to insufficient revenue to fund them with cash - and the second is an increase in the tax-supported contribution to Transit the City makes, probably to help fund both of Transit's operating (salaries and supplies) costs and their capital costs (BRT, new buses, etc.) So the increase you are talking about is due to reduced cash available to fund infrastructure projects (and therefore higher debt servicing costs) and investments in transit to accommodate demand and fare freezes (higher contributions to transit).

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

What do you mean council can do nothing about it? There's no requirement that salaries/wages be dictated by national trends. A competent civic government would never allow the tail to wag the dog. If that will never be a possibility then I want my part of the city to secede (maybe join with the neighboring municipality, in my case we would form a nice-sized city of 65 to 70,000 population with a fairly decent population density as well) and operate a successful municipal government that balances spending priorities. If, according to you, Winnipeg's hands are tied and there's nothing that can be done, then the City of Winnipeg in its current form is no longer functioning and needs to be broken up .

Council doesn't sit in the bargaining room when it comes time for Police to bargain with the City. Labour relations does, and if things go south (which has happened in the past), and independent arbitrator takes over. Sure, the city can say "The best we can give you is 2% increase" but if things don't work out, the arbitrator will come in. While I'm not an expert at union/labour/negotiation stuff, it is my general (but limited) understanding that arbitrage can often reference "what's occurring in other similar cities" to draw "fair" conclusions on what type of salary increases should occur - I could be wrong on this, however.

Moreover, the Police department has become rather "independent" from the City, relatively speaking. Believe it or not, Council and City administration doesn't have that much say in what happens in the police department with how their board and governance system is organized. Yes, they are still under the City's authority, but for the most part council approves (or does not approve) the Police budget - they don't go line by line and say "Oh, police salaries need to go down, but investment in police cars can go up." Instead, Police says "We need $302 million to fund our department this year" and council can say yes or no.

Ultimately, the solution is for council to approve safety budgets that are much more sustainable (think, 1% or 2% increases) and then let the departments figure out themselves how to deal with the "modest" increase. If salaries go up at 4% but approved budget only at 2%, then the onus is on the department to figure out a sustainable way to deliver it's services - if that means voluntary pay cuts or staff reductions, so be it. This is what council needs to do, in my opinion.

[YWG-RO]

The AT bridge at 101 / Raleigh and the signals / improvements at 59 / 202 would have covered 50-75% of a diamond at 59 / 202.

Two lanes controlled access trumps three lanes with signals everyday of the week.

101 and 59 are some of the busiest highways in Manitoba.

Big opportunity missed, but I’m not surprised given the state of 100 & 101.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by YWG-RO

The AT bridge at 101 / Raleigh

Just a note to this. I know the Province sold this to the public as "just" an Emergency Vehicle/Active Transportation bridge to appease the near by COW residents but...make no mistake, it is a 2 lane road with a separated Active Transportation path.

It should be paved within the month and open to traffic soon. It will be the grandest emergency vehicle only thoroughfare on earth if it opens as such.

[CoryB]

^^ I have no doubts the Raleigh overpass was built to allow a two lane vehicle road underneath. The challenge is the province and RM of ESP have no authority of Winnipeg controlled roads. There is ZERO preventing the City of Winnipeg from cutting that road right before their boundary.

It is pretty clear the next move is all on ESP. If the RM is willing to put a long term funding agreement in place and bare the added costs of the roadway on the Winnipeg side there is seemingly a deal to be brokered. If there is no cash on the table though Winnipeg has no reason to enter into any agreement.

[bomberjet]

I don't have much of an issue if it becomes a 2 lane road for passenger vehicles. The City was opposed to having a Wal-Mart there and having endless semi-truck traffic using the local roads from Lag or Henderson to access the development. That's where the dispute came from. I now understand the Wal-mart is going on the old Meadows golf course.

Having a connection to the north side will also benefit Winnipeg residents. Making it easier to travel into ESP.

[Phil’s neighbour]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I don't have much of an issue if it becomes a 2 lane road for passenger vehicles.

I agree. Traffic will be two way and minimal, benefitting both sides. Browaty’s hair on fire rants about traffic loads are ridiculous. This is a bucholic little settlement, not a metropolis on the northern edges that will swamp city roads. Lucky to see a trickle of vehicles; most will continue to use Lag.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Phil’s neighbour

I agree. Traffic will be two way and minimal, benefitting both sides. Browaty’s hair on fire rants about traffic loads are ridiculous. This is a bucholic little settlement, not a metropolis on the northern edges that will swamp city roads. Lucky to see a trickle of vehicles; most will continue to use Lag.

That isn't exactly true. With access north of 101 and west of Lag now cut off except for Bird's Hill Rd traffic from ESP now either needs to to head north before going south or needs to go further west to Henderson before back east on 101 to Lag. Opening on Raleigh under 101 to through traffic definitely has demand, especially with the large ESP sports complex just up the road a little.

As I said previously, ESP is the one that really needs to road opened. There is no benefit to Winnipeg.