Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure

[dennis]

I don’t like putting the words freeway and downtown together, but i agree we need them. Having controlled intersections on busy routes like the perimeter is dangerous and inefficient for large transport trucks. Centreport is adequate for now but in the future especially when chief peguis is complete and connected and as the city grows, that whole stretch may benefit from being a freeway. It would be nice to have a freeway at least up to Nova Scotia of New Brunswick standards.

[esquire]

I can live with the Perimeter, CCW and the inner ring route (Bishop Grandin/Lagimodiere/Chief Peguis and maybe eventually someday a western leg) becoming full freeways, but I don't think I'd want any more than that. The age of carving up existing neighbourhoods for freeways is long gone.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by esquire

I can live with the Perimeter, CCW and the inner ring route (Bishop Grandin/Lagimodiere/Chief Peguis and maybe eventually someday a western leg) becoming full freeways, but I don't think I'd want any more than that. The age of carving up existing neighbourhoods for freeways is long gone.

You wouldn't really need to, I've heard lots of talk about Rail relocation on here. If the CP rail yard were to be relocated, there would be no investor who could build on the site due to ecological reasons and the astronomical cost of cleaning the site up. 3 levels of government investment would be needed to clean up the yards. Why not use that land to create a freeway? you already have the bridges and it skirts downtown, you would just need a few diamond intersection. You wouldn't need to carve out any neighborhoods.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by dmacc

You wouldn't really need to, I've heard lots of talk about Rail relocation on here. If the CP rail yard were to be relocated, there would be no investor who could build on the site due to ecological reasons and the astronomical cost of cleaning the site up. 3 levels of government investment would be needed to clean up the yards. Why not use that land to create a freeway? you already have the bridges and it skirts downtown, you would just need a few diamond intersection. You wouldn't need to carve out any neighborhoods.

Rail rights of way are much narrower than any freeway would have to be. I suppose the CP line from roughly downtown to the western edge of town would be easily convertible to a freeway since it runs though some big railyards, but's far from being a critical transportation priority.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by dmacc

You wouldn't really need to, I've heard lots of talk about Rail relocation on here. If the CP rail yard were to be relocated, there would be no investor who could build on the site due to ecological reasons and the astronomical cost of cleaning the site up. 3 levels of government investment would be needed to clean up the yards. Why not use that land to create a freeway? you already have the bridges and it skirts downtown, you would just need a few diamond intersection. You wouldn't need to carve out any neighborhoods.

Does that portion of the city lack options going E-W or vice versa? with CPT extension coming up I don't think that would be entirely necessary.

Spending billions to remove the rail lines would have to eventually lead to new tax sources for the city. There is no way in hell that makes sense to spend untold sums of money to move CP out of the city, only to put in a freeway to promote car culture even more, and sink tax dollars to fund a highway that won't yield any returns.

I am against the proposed rail removal (CP yards in the North end). I don't think it makes financial sense. But if for whatever reason it goes ahead, it better not be to put in a freeway from Main to McPhillips. There better be a tax generating neighbourhood going in instead

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by WildCake

Does that portion of the city lack options going E-W or vice versa? with CPT extension coming up I don't think that would be entirely necessary.

Spending billions to remove the rail lines would have to eventually lead to new tax sources for the city. There is no way in hell that makes sense to spend untold sums of money to move CP out of the city, only to put in a freeway to promote car culture even more, and sink tax dollars to fund a highway that won't yield any returns.

I am against the proposed rail removal (CP yards in the North end). I don't think it makes financial sense. But if for whatever reason it goes ahead, it better not be to put in a freeway from Main to McPhillips. There better be a tax generating neighbourhood going in instead

You could do both, the width of the CP rail yard is 2-3 times larger then needed for a freeway of 8 lanes. This way the government cleans the environmental mess and gets a freeway while making it economically viable for developers to now develop that area. If it doesn't make economic sense to move the lines then we shouldn't do it. Of course proper due diligence is needed but I'm sure a lot of people thought it was a waste to move the yards at the forks but look at how positive that turned out.

[esquire]

^ The big difference is that CN moved out on its own as the East Yards were surplus to the railway's needs, the government did not have to push CN out of that site. The CP yards, on the other hand, are still very much in use.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ The big difference is that CN moved out on its own as the East Yards were surplus to the railway's needs, the government did not have to push CN out of that site. The CP yards, on the other hand, are still very much in use.

I'm surprised CP doesn't want out of there due to the higher land cost, being on the outskirts or just outside of the city would be much cheaper I would think. Maybe CP will win the rail bid at Centre Port and move on their own.

[esquire]

^ A new yard would be hugely expensive. Even if the current facility isn't cutting edge, it still does the job and CP doesn't appear to be in any rush to leave.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by dmacc

You could do both, the width of the CP rail yard is 2-3 times larger then needed for a freeway of 8 lanes. This way the government cleans the environmental mess and gets a freeway while making it economically viable for developers to now develop that area. If it doesn't make economic sense to move the lines then we shouldn't do it. Of course proper due diligence is needed but I'm sure a lot of people thought it was a waste to move the yards at the forks but look at how positive that turned out.

This might be better off on the rail relocation thread

Good points about the width of the yards, although I am not sure putting in a freeway will help 'bridge the gap' separating the north end and downtown, which has been another major argument for removing the yards.

I'll never disagree that relocating the yards out of the Forks was a good idea. Arguably the best move that the city has made.

Two major differences between the forks and CP:

1) at the time of removal, the Forks railyards had seen a reduction in use and effectiveness, as CN was using Symington and transcona yards as their main hubs. The Forks yard was out of date and no longer critical for their operations

http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/forksseven...ertopark.shtml

2) removing the CP yards means removing basically all of CP's operations in the city. The forks was a less significant project as it was smaller and had less of an impact on CN, so they were likely more agreeable to the move

Keeping that in mind, the scope of any CP removal will be exponentially greater than the forks, and the return on investment will likely be much lower. Even if it is a mid to high density residential, I doubt it will have the tax and tourism benefit of the Forks.

If an economics study can prove me wrong then I am all ears for redevolpment and relocation.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by WildCake

Keeping that in mind, the scope of any CP removal will be exponentially greater than the forks, and the return on investment will likely be much lower. Even if it is a mid to high density residential, I doubt it will have the tax and tourism benefit of the Forks.

If an economics study can prove me wrong then I am all ears for redevolpment and relocation.

The bold part above is the crux of the issue here. The Forks was relatively small parcel of land right on the river in the heart of the city. The rail yard basically sat on A+ prime land.

Contrast that with the CP yards which are massive. There is an old legacy light industrial area to the south, and a low-income area to the north. So you're talking about a far bigger area, but far less useful and far less marketable land. And it's still in use as a railyard so not only are you just taking the land off the railway's hands as was the case in the 80s with The Forks, you have to buy out a going concern.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ You could certainly make the argument that if you have no freeways, city streets themselves start taking on the character of freeways. Winnipeg has an alarmingly high number of stroads with slip lanes, huge numbers of big trucks pounding away, etc.

Winnipeg has an unusual road structure given its topography. Is it that it was a product of being separate municipalities until 1971? Was there an equivalent to 'Metro Toronto' or 'Communauté urbaine de Montréal' in Winnipeg prior to amalgamation? Did the province not protect right-of-ways on its sections of provincial highways?

Anyway, the 'half-freeway' arterial roads always mystified me. I could see how it might become a staged freeway, but the design choices (small accesses) make it look less planned and more like different teams in different eras designed it.

[buzzg]

"Less planned" is kind of our motto, and "different teams" is our mantra.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by WildCake

This might be better off on the rail relocation thread

Good points about the width of the yards, although I am not sure putting in a freeway will help 'bridge the gap' separating the north end and downtown, which has been another major argument for removing the yards.

I'll never disagree that relocating the yards out of the Forks was a good idea. Arguably the best move that the city has made.

Two major differences between the forks and CP:

1) at the time of removal, the Forks railyards had seen a reduction in use and effectiveness, as CN was using Symington and transcona yards as their main hubs. The Forks yard was out of date and no longer critical for their operations

http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/forksseven...ertopark.shtml

2) removing the CP yards means removing basically all of CP's operations in the city. The forks was a less significant project as it was smaller and had less of an impact on CN, so they were likely more agreeable to the move

Keeping that in mind, the scope of any CP removal will be exponentially greater than the forks, and the return on investment will likely be much lower. Even if it is a mid to high density residential, I doubt it will have the tax and tourism benefit of the Forks.

If an economics study can prove me wrong then I am all ears for redevolpment and relocation.

I fully support this and wouldn't want to move forward without it. I'd also like to point out that the development isn't the only economic benefit. Improved flow of goods and services through infrastructure improvement brings an inherent economic value as well. The value of redevelopment isn't simply property tax but business tax growth due to improved efficiency of travel and transport. I guess the study that was supposed to be conducted but cancelled may have been a good idea. However the province would never be on board until after their budget comes to surplus.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by wave46

Winnipeg has an unusual road structure given its topography. Is it that it was a product of being separate municipalities until 1971? Was there an equivalent to 'Metro Toronto' or 'Communauté urbaine de Montréal' in Winnipeg prior to amalgamation? Did the province not protect right-of-ways on its sections of provincial highways?

There was a Metro Winnipeg which took some of the initial steps toward designing and building a unified road network, but Metro Winnipeg only came into being 12 years before the City of Winnipeg was unified in 1972. I'm not sure what kind of metro-wide planning was taking place before 1960. By that point the damage was done to some extent.

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by esquire

There was a Metro Winnipeg which took some of the initial steps toward designing and building a unified road network, but Metro Winnipeg only came into being 12 years before the City of Winnipeg was unified in 1972. I'm not sure what kind of metro-wide planning was taking place before 1960. By that point the damage was done to some extent.

The City of Winnipeg presented a comprehensive plan for the metro area in the 1940s, though I don't think the neighbouring municipalities were too keen on going along with orders from big brother Winnipeg.

I think the bigger issue is that at no time in Winnipeg’s history has comprehensive area planning been a driving force of much of anything. For example, look at all the north-south streets between Notre Dame and the CPR mainline: even when it was clear that Winnipeg would become an important city, the families that owned these river lots (McDermot, Bannatyne, Ross, and Logan, and Fonseca) didn’t even subdivide their lands along a common plan.

So much effect at improving Winnipeg’s road system in the 20th century went to fixing previous planning oversights. And I mean big oversights. Like, did no one circa 1880 think there should be a street other than Main Street that travels north to south? Did no one think of how allowing railway companies to build whatever they want wherever they want might limit the ability to get around? Maybe gradually allowing a dense concentration of big box retail in an industrial backwater with narrow roads in St. James wasn’t such a hot idea?

[buzzg]

I think the city needs to go back to the drawing board on either Main/Portage sidewalk design, or not use cheap bricks. These photos are from Main by the WS bus stop, but all down Portage many parts look just the same, and most were redone only 3-4 years ago. These cheap bricks don't deal with snow plows well. Can't imagine trying to push a wheelchair over this.

[dmacc]

I get they are trying to make it a little aesthetically pleasing but sometimes function needs to trump aesthetics. this might be one of those times.

[buzzg]

^Yeah – these bricks are essentially compressed sand, very cheap, and crumble as such. The "real" bricks being used in the Exchange are much more sturdy. They're also much more expensive, so maybe we "can't afford" to do as extensive designs as these with those bricks, but something has to change.

[dmacc]

Buzzg for Mayor!!!