HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 7:01 AM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyc View Post
What is wrong with freeways? Deerfoot trail in Calgary is my favorite road to drive on because it is a fast efficient way to get from north to south (except when there are accidents of course). Raised freeways are a different story of course, but having a big fast road without any lights is a very good thing IMO.
I second this sentiment.
I kind of laughed at the title of this thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 11:44 AM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 8,619
Well, when you're building an insta-city out of nothing (like Calgary) you can put freeways wherever you want, but in the case of established cities like Winnipeg or Toronto building freeways means destroying significant parts of the existing social or structural fabric. The freeway plan that existed in Winnipeg in the 1960s would have totally destroyed large parts of the city with unsightly raised roads. Developments like the Forks and other riverside projects would have been impossible. Many older neighbourhoods would have been sliced up and cut off and even worse off than they are now. So it's fortunate in many respects that the freeway plans were shelved. Even the Disraeli Freeway, a short elevated road that did get built, managed to devastate an entire inner-city neighbourhood.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 2:29 PM
flatlander's Avatar
flatlander flatlander is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by newflyer View Post
I would hate to live in your bend world of modern trasportation.. but in the case of servicing the massive industry of transportation and distribution a little LRT won't cut it... and a having a BRT line will do little to nothing to enhance ridership. I think they figured it would cut up to 4-5 minutes off the trip from downtown to the University.

Sure it would make a few hundred students happy, but I would put a much higher priority on enhancing Winnipeg's roadway inhancement for the purpose of increasing efficiency of the roads, as a means to build Winnipeg's position as a transportation hub. In the end I am sure this is the direction which willbe followed as there is increased interest in cargo distribution investment in the city .. but Winnipeg needs to modernize its infrastructure. Winnipeg is turning towards attracting this type of investment, as can no longer sit idlly by and watch opportunities walk by, as it has been for far too long. Winnipeg has finally put its economic growth and investment growth at a higher priority than glossy brochure mega projects. I couldn't be happier as it will pay huge dividends for the city and province.

Out of couriousity what is the funding breakdown of Calgary's new LRT expansion?
Building an underpass at Waverley isn't going to make Winnipeg a transportation hub. Traffic on Waverley is increasingly single vehicle occupant cars. It will serve residential neighbourhoods, not commercial routes. These are two separate issues, LRT/BRT vs. commercial traffic. Does anyone in the world build an LRT to enhance cargo transportation? Obviously not.

By the way I specifically wrote light rail, so don't go throwing BRT into the mix. That was your comment not mine.
__________________
For best results play at maximum volume.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 2:37 PM
ReginaGuy's Avatar
ReginaGuy ReginaGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
Well, when you're building an insta-city out of nothing (like Calgary) you can put freeways wherever you want, but in the case of established cities like Winnipeg or Toronto building freeways means destroying significant parts of the existing social or structural fabric. The freeway plan that existed in Winnipeg in the 1960s would have totally destroyed large parts of the city with unsightly raised roads. Developments like the Forks and other riverside projects would have been impossible. Many older neighbourhoods would have been sliced up and cut off and even worse off than they are now. So it's fortunate in many respects that the freeway plans were shelved. Even the Disraeli Freeway, a short elevated road that did get built, managed to devastate an entire inner-city neighbourhood.
true, but it wouldn't be very hard to at least convert the perimeter highway to freeway status, for safety sake
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 3:22 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 11,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by craner View Post
I second this sentiment.
I kind of laughed at the title of this thread.
freeways cause sprawl, increase commuting distances, increase air pollution, increase reliance on automobile travel and destroy the urban fabric of a city.....there is a reason american cities are so much larger than canadian ones....and why cities with freeways are larger than ones without:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 4:52 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 8,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaGuy View Post
true, but it wouldn't be very hard to at least convert the perimeter highway to freeway status, for safety sake
The Perimeter is a provincial trunk highway, not a city street. It is pretty substandard, but I doubt that there is a real need to spend hundreds of millions to make it completely controlled access. Some of the existing interchanges need to be rebuilt, though.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 9:56 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
freeways cause sprawl
That would seem to be belied by the experience in Halifax, which has terrible sprawl and terrible roads.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 11:14 PM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 23,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
freeways cause sprawl, increase commuting distances, increase air pollution, increase reliance on automobile travel and destroy the urban fabric of a city.....there is a reason american cities are so much larger than canadian ones....and why cities with freeways are larger than ones without:

Is that Winnipeg superimposed over Calgary?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 11:52 PM
feepa's Avatar
feepa feepa is offline
Change is good
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyc View Post
Is that Winnipeg superimposed over Calgary?
I believe it would be 2 winnipeg's that are superimposed over Calgary. (1 Calgary would still be better then 2 Winnipeg's combined. Also interesting to note, Calgarys 1 downtown would still be bigger then 2 Winnipegs...LOL)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 11:53 PM
TSN's Avatar
TSN TSN is offline
Tiger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 70
Absolutely correct, TV. You can never build your way out of congestion, it's been proven over and over. The rate of trip making goes up, you're back into gridlock. Having an effective goods movement network is important but smart land use decisions will drive that more than simply adding capacity where trucks are competing with cars. Nobody builds freeways anymore except Calgary, Edmonton, Dallas, etc. Surprise.

Winnipeg road network isn't much different than Vancouver....Vancouver simply invested in rapid transit and coordinated land use and accomodated alot of growth that way whereas Winnipeg did nothing. Forget Calgary as a model, that's the only city I can think of that invests hundreds of millions in LRT expansion while in the same corridor enhances road capacity.

BTW, those who slag BRT, try the Ottawa system. Far better transit than what you'll get in any Prairie city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 11:53 PM
feepa's Avatar
feepa feepa is offline
Change is good
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,757
No Rapid Transit, no Freeways, I guess everyone like stopping and going at every light. Seeing as Winnipeg still has sprawl, only small tracts of it are walkable. Gotta have some mode of transportation.... Everyone on the bus! Next Red light, here we come!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 11:54 PM
feepa's Avatar
feepa feepa is offline
Change is good
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSN View Post
Absolutely correct, TV. You can never build your way out of congestion, it's been proven over and over. The rate of trip making goes up, you're back into gridlock. Having an effective goods movement network is important but smart land use decisions will drive that more than simply adding capacity where trucks are competing with cars. Nobody builds freeways anymore except Calgary, Edmonton, Dallas, etc. Surprise.

Winnipeg road network isn't much different than Vancouver....Vancouver simply invested in rapid transit and coordinated land use and accomodated alot of growth that way whereas Winnipeg did nothing. Forget Calgary as a model, that's the only city I can think of that invests hundreds of millions in LRT expansion while in the same corridor enhances road capacity.

BTW, those who slag BRT, try the Ottawa system. Far better transit than what you'll get in any Prairie city.
C-train is better then BRT in Ottawa. By a long shot. Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Halifax have all recently, and still continue to build freeways...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2007, 12:54 AM
Only The Lonely..'s Avatar
Only The Lonely.. Only The Lonely.. is offline
Portage & Main 50 below
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 4,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by feepa View Post
I believe it would be 2 winnipeg's that are superimposed over Calgary. (1 Calgary would still be better then 2 Winnipeg's combined. Also interesting to note, Calgarys 1 downtown would still be bigger then 2 Winnipegs...LOL)
But both cities would still be way more interesting than 1 Edmonton.
__________________
WINNIPEG: Home of Canada's first skyscraper!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2007, 2:00 AM
TSN's Avatar
TSN TSN is offline
Tiger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 70
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by feepa View Post
C-train is better then BRT in Ottawa. By a long shot. Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Halifax have all recently, and still continue to build freeways...
Well, the C-Train is better than what Edmonton offers, much more extensive. But having lived in both Ottawa/Calgary, and using both systems, Ottawa wins. Just as fast as LRT, more frequent service. Although it is more costly to operate. I believe Ottawa transit ridership is actually higher than Calgary's, even with 200000 fewer people. So, the attitude of nobody wanting to ride a bus applies largely to the southern US. Efficient/frequent/accessible service is the key.

As for the freeways, Vancouver is doing it as part of the Gateway initiative, whether these new perimeter roads constitute true grade separated freeways, I don't know. And Toronto, I find it hard to believe with their growth management strategy/Move Ontario program that there are freeways being built. Improvements to existing roads maybe, they have trouble maintaining their transit system.

Bottom line, Winnipeg is fine without freeways, better traffic signal technology would help, some 'point' improvements would help and the Perimeter should be grade separated for efficiency and safety purposes. The absence of an Ottawa transitway or LRT is the crying shame.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2007, 2:12 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by feepa View Post
C-train is better then BRT in Ottawa. By a long shot. Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Halifax have all recently, and still continue to build freeways...
No new freeways in Halifax. They haven't built anything close to that in years around here. That's why our traffic is so screwed up.

As for BRT, Halifax has some (called "Link" buses, for some reason) on a couple of very limited routes. They sit stuck in traffic like everyone else. None too rapid. Our road network is so antiquated and overloaded that we would need to do some massive construction just to get us to the "inadequate" stage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2007, 2:38 AM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 23,415
Blaming Calgary's sprawl on freeways is just ignorant, it is a lifestyle choice that Calgarians made. Living in bigger houses with bigger yards and having 2 of the largest inner city parks in North America dramatically increases the size of the city. Calgary also has very large industrial areas along the eastern edge of the city. Having a freeway in the city makes getting across Calgary much easier. You can take your roads with all of your traffic lights, even if they are timed, you will still end up waiting.

As for BRT lines being better than the LRT, are you kidding me? you still have to deal with traffic and you will still be screwed if there is an accident. Calgary has BRT too, it services the ares of the city that do not yet have the C-train. It's a good system, but it can not compete with the LRT.

Like I said before, sprawl is driven by consumers wanting to buy a house with a good size yard instead of a townhouse or an apartment, and with a high average income, that's a choice that more people here can afford to make.

Talking about Calgary being the only city still building freeways is wrong, you people speak as if we are demolishing neighborhoods and building elevated freeways, when all we are really doing is building more overpasses and increasing traffic flow on existing roads. Deerfoot is our only true freeway, and will stay that way until Glenmore / Sarcee can manage to get rid of all the traffic lights, and move from being a causeway to a freeway. The only thing we are building from scratch (and that is only sections) is the ring road, and you would have to be a complete idiot to tell me that is a bad thing. Anyone who has ever tried to cross through the city on 16th Ave (especially driving an 18 wheeler) knows how frustrating a task that is, the ring road is meant to alleviate that.

Lastly, saying that a freeway causes more pollution is a half truth, true it may increase the distance you travel and thus the amount of gas you burn, but it will greatly reduce the amount of time that you spend in traffic idling (which also burns gas don't you know), and I would say that is better.

end rant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2007, 3:26 AM
Greco Roman Greco Roman is offline
Movin' on up
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by feepa View Post
I believe it would be 2 winnipeg's that are superimposed over Calgary. (1 Calgary would still be better then 2 Winnipeg's combined. Also interesting to note, Calgarys 1 downtown would still be bigger then 2 Winnipegs...LOL)
And two Winnipeg's would both be better than one feepa; always . Reading your responses towards Winnipeg, I don't think that Malek (according to you) or Waterlooson are the only troublemakers (ie trolls) on this forum.

Last edited by Greco Roman; Sep 26, 2007 at 4:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2007, 4:18 AM
malek's Avatar
malek malek is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montréal
Posts: 8,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by feepa View Post
C-train is better then BRT in Ottawa. By a long shot. Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Halifax have all recently, and still continue to build freeways...

mmmyeah, as recent as 1975 for Montréal? (highway 13). Again talking out of your ass

Thankfully we'll get a new bridge and extension for the 25 by 2011.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2007, 4:26 AM
TSN's Avatar
TSN TSN is offline
Tiger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyc View Post
Blaming Calgary's sprawl on freeways is just ignorant, it is a lifestyle choice that Calgarians made. Living in bigger houses with bigger yards and having 2 of the largest inner city parks in North America dramatically increases the size of the city. Calgary also has very large industrial areas along the eastern edge of the city. Having a freeway in the city makes getting across Calgary much easier. You can take your roads with all of your traffic lights, even if they are timed, you will still end up waiting.

As for BRT lines being better than the LRT, are you kidding me? you still have to deal with traffic and you will still be screwed if there is an accident. Calgary has BRT too, it services the ares of the city that do not yet have the C-train. It's a good system, but it can not compete with the LRT.

Like I said before, sprawl is driven by consumers wanting to buy a house with a good size yard instead of a townhouse or an apartment, and with a high average income, that's a choice that more people here can afford to make.

Talking about Calgary being the only city still building freeways is wrong, you people speak as if we are demolishing neighborhoods and building elevated freeways, when all we are really doing is building more overpasses and increasing traffic flow on existing roads. Deerfoot is our only true freeway, and will stay that way until Glenmore / Sarcee can manage to get rid of all the traffic lights, and move from being a causeway to a freeway. The only thing we are building from scratch (and that is only sections) is the ring road, and you would have to be a complete idiot to tell me that is a bad thing. Anyone who has ever tried to cross through the city on 16th Ave (especially driving an 18 wheeler) knows how frustrating a task that is, the ring road is meant to alleviate that.

Lastly, saying that a freeway causes more pollution is a half truth, true it may increase the distance you travel and thus the amount of gas you burn, but it will greatly reduce the amount of time that you spend in traffic idling (which also burns gas don't you know), and I would say that is better.

end rant.
There are different forms of BRT. You're right, you run it as on on-street operation without signal priority, etc. and it's a fraud, buses stuck everywhere. Put it on its own dedicated right of way like Ottawa, that works great. Comparing Calgary's so-called BRT to Ottawa's is night and day.

Nobody said Calgary was the ONLY city building freeway type roads. Last I saw, Crowchild was being expanded and turned into a freeway, minus a couple of traffic signals north of the river. And this road takes traffic right to downtown, what other city is providing enhanced auto access into a downtown. Maybe doesn't matter much based on parking charges.

Calgary's development was heavily influenced by the Dallas/Houston mentality, which is one the reasons it's a bit different from every other city in Canada in terms of sprawl and big roads.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2007, 4:39 AM
Lee_Haber8 Lee_Haber8 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by feepa View Post
C-train is better then BRT in Ottawa. By a long shot. Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Halifax have all recently, and still continue to build freeways...
Montreal just removed an interchange near where I lived. It's much easier to get around by foot and it's amazing how much land has been freed up for parks and development. It also makes a streetcar running on Parc possible.
__________________
www.winnipegrapidtransit.ca
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:35 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.