Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure

[Biff]

I hate to admit it.....I had to look up "feinged".

"not genuine or real""fictitious"

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Allen Mankewich ‬and Zanna Joyce, are both key accessibility leaders in Winnipeg and both were fundamental leaders in the Portage and Main effort. Please feel free to contact them and tell them your feelings about how they feigned interest in accessibility for their pet project.

I respect what you do to bring urban issues to the forefront Vike, but please don't twist my words. Allen and Zanna are great, and Allen's stories of accessibility issues in our City are excellent reminders of how far we have yet to go.

My point is that so many are crying "this is an accessibility issue! This is a human rights issue!" when really they couldn't care less about accessibility, as evidenced by their actions and words. Their concerns are aesthetic, urban, or other, which is completely fine. But then admit it as such, and don't waste the limited political capital that the accessibility advocates have on "pet projects" that are so low down on the accessibility advocacy priority list. And with all do respect, you and others came down hard on Barrier-Free Manitoba last year when they didn't come out with strong support for Team Open. Imagine that, us urbanists telling an accessibility advocacy group what their priorities should be and what their messaging should be.

[BuildUpWpg]

Originally Posted by The Jabroni

That looks so much better than... whatever the f*** that is going on along Garry.

I was on Garry today...all of the white "go around" signs have been removed, leaving the black and yellow striped signs. Looks a bit better. I guess they were listening to us!

[BuildUpWpg]

Originally Posted by LilZebra

No, just looks like poorly implemented design.

I should have took note how they handled the driveways and backlanes with the bike paths while I was in Seattle. Next time!

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Bdog

I respect what you do to bring urban issues to the forefront Vike, but please don't twist my words. Allen and Zanna are great, and Allen's stories of accessibility issues in our City are excellent reminders of how far we have yet to go.

My point is that so many are crying "this is an accessibility issue! This is a human rights issue!" when really they couldn't care less about accessibility, as evidenced by their actions and words. Their concerns are aesthetic, urban, or other, which is completely fine. But then admit it as such, and don't waste the limited political capital that the accessibility advocates have on "pet projects" that are so low down on the accessibility advocacy priority list. And with all do respect, you and others came down hard on Barrier-Free Manitoba last year when they didn't come out with strong support for Team Open. Imagine that, us urbanists telling an accessibility advocacy group what their priorities should be and what their messaging should be.

The city was voting on one issue and one issue only. Accessibility is a huge part of the debate. I don’t understand why you think it was used as a stunt. One of the people who started the group on day one has dedicated her life to the issues of accessibility. Were we not supposed to talk about accessibility because there are accessibility issues elsewhere? That makes no sense. It is 100% a human rights issue. I wrote about that several times years before the vote. Why do you think it isn’t a human rights issue?

Barrier Free Manitoba told us they wouldn’t publicly support the initiative because most of their members are drivers and felt traffic was more important. They decided driving fast was more important than accessibility, which the advocacy professionals in our organizing group were upset by. You talk like it is some homogeneous group where everyone has the same opinion. It wasn’t ‘urbanists’. The vote open group was founded by accessibility professionals.

Again. Please tell Zana and Allen that you feel they were wasting their time volunteering hundreds of hours of their time because they believe accessibility is a big part of why the underground is an issue. I don’t understand why you think any member of that group doesnt passionately believe accessibility is important there and elsewhere. Please explain.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by trueviking

The city was voting on one issue and one issue only. Accessibility is a huge part of the debate. I don’t understand why you think it was used as a stunt. One of the people who started the group on day one has dedicated her life to the issues of accessibility. Were we not supposed to talk about accessibility because there are accessibility issues elsewhere? That makes no sense. It is 100% a human rights issue. I wrote about that several times years before the vote. Why do you think it isn’t a human rights issue?

Barrier Free Manitoba told us they wouldn’t publicly support the initiative because most of their members are drivers and felt traffic was more important. They decided driving fast was more important than accessibility, which the advocacy professionals in our organizing group were upset by. You talk like it is some homogeneous group where everyone has the same opinion. It wasn’t ‘urbanists’. The vote open group was founded by accessibility professionals.

Again. Please tell Zana and Allen that you feel they were wasting their time volunteering hundreds of hours of their time because they believe accessibility is a big part of why the underground is an issue. I don’t understand why you think any member of that group doesnt passionately believe accessibility is important there and elsewhere. Please explain.

If you don't see it, don't worry about it. When bikelanes created challenges for Handi-Transit drop offs and wheelchairs, the "humans rights" angle quickly disappeared. When heritage status makes accessibility near impossible at half the restaurants and coffee shops in the Exchange, our "accessibility advocates" become ghosts. But when a sidewalk is narrowed but functional and up to standard, it's convenient to all of a sudden claim that it's an accessibility travesty and a human rights issue. 

If the protest against the 'narrow' sidewalk is truly out of a concern for those with mobility issues, then great! If the protest is because it wasn't an urban thing to do, or cars take up too much public space, or the streetscape isn't up to urban design visions, then no shame in admitting that's the case. To me, and many others, the real travesty is that once you cross the street, or get down the sidewalk, you can't get into to dozens of buildings, cafes, and galleries.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by BuildUpWpg

I was on Garry today...all of the white "go around" signs have been removed, leaving the black and yellow striped signs. Looks a bit better. I guess they were listening to us!

You should really only need the go around signs at the start of each block, maybe. What I think would be much better is having the black/yellow chevron, with a diamond cycle lane sign pointing down-left. Way more clear. Also, make the top sign the width of the chevron sign, the big ones keep getting damaged.

Put this on top of the chevron, same width (no reason for it to be the same size as the overhead ones on Main):


I also like the idea of putting the plastic bollards in the middle of two-way lanes so vehicles don't park there. The planters on Bannatyne helped with that as the bike lane was a full lane width, people were initially using it as a turn lane.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by trueviking

you are f*cking hilarious. There was a public plebiscite about on one issue. I am very certain every single one of the volunteers who worked to open Portage and Main are opposed to this sidewalk narrowing. So what do you expect those individuals to do exactly? Start another campaign? Spend their lives fighting pedestrian injustice? Why don't you get your ass off the couch and do something if it is so important to you, instead of criticizing others who volunteered their time and stuck their necks out in a guaranteed losing situation to try and make a difference. Thanks armchair quarterback for your insight. What did you do to help? What are you doing now? I'm sure those who spent hundreds of hours of their own time and were ridiculed by most of the city would love for you to take up the fight. Until you are ready to do something yourself, maybe keep your criticism to yourself.

The reason this became a public issue is because I tweeted about it (a tweet viewed 54,000 times) and then called several councillors to talk about the issue. Within hours all the local media was all over it.

Maybe if you would take a minute to get off your ivory tower and actually LISTEN to citizens people would actually back some of your issues. I was VERY focal from people the P&M question was even announced for the ballot that the public needed MORE information. I reached out to people at City hall asking for that info only to be blocked. When it came time to vote it was clear there was only ONE choice -- vote to send the question back for more information. Exactly as one would do as elected official following long established protocols. And considering just short of 2/3 of the votes went the same way it was clear.

Just because you don't see what someone is doing to make themselves look all "important" like you try to do doesn't mean they are not doing things or that what they are doing isn't important. If you truly want to be and influencer on a larger scale you should learn that basic lesson.

And further, while Team Open was for a specific issue if even 10% of their supporters truly cared about the "accessibility issues" which was a key point to Team Opens position the 7,000+ voices continuing to push forward on wider accessibility issues in the community as a whole there would be a world of difference happening across the city. That there is near zero chatter on accessibility issues outside of a single sidewalk that you personally don't like speaks volumes through its silence.

On that same sidewalk issue, it was me that went and looked up the factual standard that would most likely apply to test if it was an issue. Unlikely the misinformed fear mongering being spread by people like you. Sorry the facts didn't support you on that issue. That is part of the accessibility fight, picking the battles that would truly make a difference. Not putting up some straw man to misdirect true progress.

[esquire]

^ So you either have to dedicate your life to the cause or remain silent, those are the options?

[optimusREIM]

Appears to be the case. Better stop voting or promoting any political issue because I'm not dedicated enough to most of the causes I support. While were at it I'll also just renounce all my opinions concerning vision for the city since I'm clearly not entitled to want nice things. Never mind having nice things...

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ So you either have to dedicate your life to the cause or remain silent, those are the options?

No, but if you say that some principle P is important to you in the context of pursuing your goal G, and proceed to ignore P in most or all other contexts, I am justified in suspecting that you don't really support P as much as you were letting on.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ So you either have to dedicate your life to the cause or remain silent, those are the options?

CoryB has very high standards. Remember, we also have to build a rapid transit network that reaches all corners of the city before we can consider letting people cross the street at Portage & Main.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Andy6

No, but if you say that some principle P is important to you in the context of pursuing your goal G, and proceed to ignore P in most or all other contexts, I am justified in suspecting that you don't really support P as much as you were letting on.

vike has now gone on record publicly speaking out on at least two issues that affect accessibility. I'd wager that's more than probably 99.9% of the population, yet that's still not enough?

I don't see why you have to become a full time accessibility advocate to point out instances where decisions regarding infrastructure have adversely affected accessibility among other things.

[Bdog]

Imagine the shoe was on the other foot in this situation, and people were using accessibility against what we consider "good urbanism"? 

"Infill homes aren't accessible because the main floor is raised to high, and the front steps are too steep! Ban infill, cause if you don't, you're against people in wheelchairs!"

"De-list my building from Heritage status. It's making it too hard to build elevators, ramps, and lifts in my building, and is making accessibility impossible! Forcing heritage status on my building is going to strip some of their human rights!"

"Take out these bike lanes. I'm advocating for my friend in a wheelchair who can't be dropped off and has trouble crossing certain sections of road! Anyone supporting these bike lanes clearly does not care about the weakest among us. Cyclists are king while those in wheelchairs are treated like second class citizens."

We've seen first hand that many forumers would say "These people are just using accessibility as an excuse to oppose infill / heritage status / bikelanes. They don't really care about accessibility! It's just nimbyism under the guise of accessibility advocacy!"

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

vike has now gone on record publicly speaking out on at least two issues that affect accessibility. I'd wager that's more than probably 99.9% of the population, yet that's still not enough?

I don't see why you have to become a full time accessibility advocate to point out instances where decisions regarding infrastructure have adversely affected accessibility among other things.

And I have been advocating publicly on my own Twitter and by contacting politicians regarding accessibility issues for pedestrians in downtown Winnipeg for years. I didn't just pick up the mantel because I have some vested interest in a multimillion dollar project to open a single intersection. I am also working to influence other areas of public interest on accessibility issues.

Simple put, the changes to the Main St sidewalk by Across the Board are NOT A LEGITIMATE ACCESSIBILITY ISSUE Trying to push your anti-car agenda forward on this issue by trying to call it an accessibility issue does more to harm TRUE accessibility issue than it does to help.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Trying to push your anti-car agenda forward on this issue by trying to call it an accessibility issue does more to harm TRUE accessibility issue than it does to help.

"anti-car agenda" LOL

Yes, what an agenda it is to advocate for keeping some the last remaining bit of pedestrian space left along Main that hasn't been turned over to cars.

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Maybe if you would take a minute to get off your ivory tower and actually LISTEN to citizens people would actually back some of your issues. I was VERY focal from people the P&M question was even announced for the ballot that the public needed MORE information. I reached out to people at City hall asking for that info only to be blocked.

So the city failed miserably in their responsibility to educate the public on this issue, so a group of passionate people stepped in and tried to fill the void the city left, and you're getting upset with them?

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Simple put, the changes to the Main St sidewalk by Across the Board are NOT A LEGITIMATE ACCESSIBILITY ISSUE Trying to push your anti-car agenda forward on this issue by trying to call it an accessibility issue does more to harm TRUE accessibility issue than it does to help.

What was the impetus for the change? The reasoning is "oh, because of the bike lane". Which happens to be a load of BS. The new loading zone is on Main. the old loading zone was on Bannatyne. the entrance to the dance studio is on Bannatyne. What happened was that some parent who is friends with someone in the city, put the bug in their ear, because "OMG! LITTLE SALLY CAN'T BE EXPECTED TO CROSS THE STREET". Which is kind of funny, because now that the bike lane is on Bannatyne, visibility for pedestrians crossing Bannatyne at Albert is much better.

[BuildUpWpg]

Does anyone use the city 311 app to report potholes? I've noticed my reports are ignored and even closed off with the repairs even being done.

[GreyGarden]

I don't understand why it always has to be one or the other. I was upset by the sidewalk narrowing mainly for what some might call "urbanist" reasons. But when a friend pointed out that the narrowing will also be tough on people with mobility issues I figured that this was also an important consideration along with my concerns around street design and public space. I don't understand why these concerns have to then be ranked. I think its sensible to put forward all the concerns surrounding a city decision like this. I also don't think it's fair to say this isn't a legitimate accessibility issue, is it as bad as lack of access to downtown buildings; I suppose it isn't, but that doesn't make it wrong to point it out when looking at the sidewalk narrowing. I would consider my expertise more within planning and law and I'm certainly no accessibility expert, but when someone tells me that an issue engages other disciplines I think it's effective to point it out and offer my support. Disciplines leaning on other discipline's areas of expertise can be a helpful way to put forward more complete arguments.

Cities like Hamilton are widening the sidewalks on their main streets. I used to think that Winnipeggers simply didn't like change but that doesn't seem to be the case. We just can't seem to accept that best practice has changed. I don't know if our city simply isn't aware of best practices or if they're just content with the status quo and being second rate but it's very frustrating. It's disheartening to see us being surpassed by smaller cities. It doesn't have to be that way, it's not like the people of Hamilton are inherently better, Winnipeg's priorities are just so outdated its crazy.