Portage and Main re-opening 2016

[Riverman]

It will slow it down a great deal. Presently turns onto NB Main from Portage are unrestricted. The number of turns will cut at least in half if people are crossing there. The two turning lanes will be backed up to Maryland, or, of course, shortcutting.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Took me about 1/2 hour to go from Disraeli to St. Mary on Main one day last week and this was after 5:00 PM. The ''just open P&M just because" crowd can suck lemons!

Exactly. Or turn before Logan and use Waterfront/Provoncer/Tache and save 25 minutes of idling.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Also, regardless of you opinion on whether to reopen P&M, I think it's ridiculous to think having pedestrians cross is gonna slow it down much, if at all, since most light times are about a minute already anyway and there's already plenty of lights on Main that aren't synced.

Our mayor said he would take all safety precautions for pedestrians into account as well as the apparent nightmarish traffic conditions that will be be created when the barriers are removed.

I stop at all these lights for a minute either way...barriers or not. Change is hard for many to accept, it gets easier as you get younger..lol.., but they'll have to accept it. After a couple months, we'll find other distractions to nag about, I guarantee it..Incoming replies...go....

[Riverman]

Hey, I don't really care. There is nothing for me downtown, I just pass through and I have ways around in any direction. But to state that there will not be any negative consequences to this is just idiotic.

[Chrisforpm]

Originally Posted by Cyro

Our mayor said he would take all safety precautions for pedestrians into account as well as the apparent nightmarish traffic conditions that will be be created when the barriers are removed.

I stop at all these lights for a minute either way...barriers or not. Change is hard for many to accept, it gets easier as you get younger..lol.., but they'll have to accept it. After a couple months, we'll find other distractions to nag about, I guarantee it..Incoming replies...go....

They have large intersections with pedestrian traffic in major cities such as New York and London. I'm sure they can figure out something here. Not saying it'll be easy, but people will get used to it. In London all lights go red and pedestrians can cross. I'm sure they will make it work.

[esquire]

Open it up and if traffic armageddon ensues, then close it back up. This isn't rocket science. There are parts of the barrier that can be removed with a forklift to allow pedestrian crossings... once everyone involved comes to an agreement, the actual work of opening the intersection to pedestrians is small potatoes.

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Hey, I don't really care. There is nothing for me downtown, I just pass through and I have ways around in any direction. But to state that there will not be any negative consequences to this is just idiotic.

If they open it it will throw a wrench in things around there for a short while and then eventually even itself out as people adjust. It's called induced demand man, facilitating more cars just encourages more people to drive through there and there's plenty of evidence out there now that removing lanes and even whole roads just reduces traffic in the long run and things clear up. This would be excellent for P&M as the people who drive in that area are generally crazed lunatics with lead feet that make it frightening to be a pedestrian, some traffic calming would be welcome. Like you said, you have plenty of other ways around so presumably people will take alternate routes.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Chrisforpm

They have large intersections with pedestrian traffic in major cities such as New York and London. I'm sure they can figure out something here. Not saying it'll be easy, but people will get used to it. In London all lights go red and pedestrians can cross. I'm sure they will make it work.

They have large pedestrian traffic on certain routes in other cities because there are viable alternate routes, with Main St. getting to St. Marys Road, Donald, Osborne, etc. from NE or NW Winnipeg you don't have much choice to take other than Main St.

Suppose none of the "just open P&M, just because" crowd live in either NE or NW Winnipeg!

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Riverman

It will slow it down a great deal. Presently turns onto NB Main from Portage are unrestricted. The number of turns will cut at least in half if people are crossing there. The two turning lanes will be backed up to Maryland, or, of course, shortcutting.

The "just open P&M, just because" proponents obviously don't actually have to travel through that intersection on a daily basis because if they did they would clearly understand the huge backup on Portage that will occur when the number of vehicles that can turn is cut in at least half through every light cycle. Main St. between Higgins and Broadway has become a worse and worse bottleneck every year where waiting 2-3 light cycles to cross some of the intersections is the new norm!~

[Pinus]

Originally Posted by Cyro

Probe Research Poll:

68 % cent of people 55 and older are against reopening Portage and Main
61% aged 18 to 34 are in favour.

Shocking discovery..

But our illustrious leader at City Hall has Pledged:

"I't's not a question of if the barricades will come down, but
when. He has pledged to have it open in time for the 2017 Canada
Summer Games, which Winnipeg will host."



Freep snippet

Based on these stats, [..MOD..]

[Riverman]

Of course, [..MOD....] Is that all you know?

[YWG-RO]

Originally Posted by Chrisforpm

They have large intersections with pedestrian traffic in major cities such as New York and London. I'm sure they can figure out something here. Not saying it'll be easy, but people will get used to it. In London all lights go red and pedestrians can cross. I'm sure they will make it work.

Beg to differ.

Many international cities integrate major street crossings into their rapid transit system. Pedestrian traffic is often forced underground through the subway entrances or above ground (common in Asia). One could argue that the concourse was forward thinking in the 1970s. What hurts us is the lack of critical mass downtown. That is, too few people over too large an area. It's improving, but I doubt opening P&M will result in thousands of people hanging around outside, especially in winter. Vehicular traffic, including buses will move slower, resulting in bottlenecks at Fort and possibly Graham. Likely result in more CO2 emissions.

I get where urban planners are coming from, but the realities of Winnipeg are different from most cities owing to climate and lack of existing infrastructure.

I'd like to use the Disraeli overpass to illustrate: let's spend an extra $25 M to build a bicycle / predestrian bridge and keep the vehicular bridge narrow with non-existent shoulders. Cyclists can still use the roadway, bottleneck traffic and risk injury. Would it be more sensible to place one sidewalk and two wide shoulders for cyclists (or stalled cars) and have omitted the "active transportation" bridge? Political correctness rules over pragmatism and safety.

Hopefully the politicians will properly assess P&M and make the safe decision, not the political one. Not holding my breath.

[cslusarc]

IMHO, something different needs to be done at Portage and Main. I do agree with other posters that opening up a wholly at-grade intersection up to pedestrians is going to limit the vehicular throughout of the intersection. If we truly want pedestrians at-grade then some vehicular traffic, such as through traffic on Main Street, needs to go underground in a tunnel or above on a flyover.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by YWG-RO

Beg to differ.

Many international cities integrate major street crossings into their rapid transit system. Pedestrian traffic is often forced underground through the subway entrances or above ground (common in Asia). One could argue that the concourse was forward thinking in the 1970s. What hurts us is the lack of critical mass downtown. That is, too few people over too large an area. It's improving, but I doubt opening P&M will result in thousands of people hanging around outside, especially in winter. Vehicular traffic, including buses will move slower, resulting in bottlenecks at Fort and possibly Graham. Likely result in more CO2 emissions.

I get where urban planners are coming from, but the realities of Winnipeg are different from most cities owing to climate and lack of existing infrastructure.

I'd like to use the Disraeli overpass to illustrate: let's spend an extra $25 M to build a bicycle / predestrian bridge and keep the vehicular bridge narrow with non-existent shoulders. Cyclists can still use the roadway, bottleneck traffic and risk injury. Would it be more sensible to place one sidewalk and two wide shoulders for cyclists (or stalled cars) and have omitted the "active transportation" bridge? Political correctness rules over pragmatism and safety.

Hopefully the politicians will properly assess P&M and make the safe decision, not the political one. Not holding my breath.

All good points, really agree about the Disraeli, narrow lanes with a separate pedestrian/cycle bridge that no one uses, the pedestrian bridge itself is mostly out of view so there are major safety concerns for anyone using it, I personally know of a couple of incidents where lone cyclists were accosted! Of course none of this was taken into account by egg head planners who mostly live in la la land.

As a active transportation bridge the separate bridge is a fail as it basically dead ends on both ends without dedicated viable ped/ cycle pathways.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by cslusarc

IMHO, something different needs to be done at Portage and Main. I do agree with other posters that opening up a wholly at-grade intersection up to pedestrians is going to limit the vehicular throughout of the intersection. If we truly want pedestrians at-grade then some vehicular traffic, such as through traffic on Main Street, needs to go underground in a tunnel or above on a flyover.

Well considering the movement through P&M is about 97% vehicle traffic why don't we just send the very few pedestrians who cross P&M underground through tunnels.....

[Wigglez]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Well considering the movement through P&M is about 97% vehicle traffic why don't we just send the very few pedestrians who cross P&M underground through tunnels.....

I wonder why pedestrian traffic at an intersection that is closed to pedestrian traffic is so low... Perhaps we should conduct a 25 year study that costs 200 billion dollars to see if anyone can find some sort of correlation between "no pedestrian traffic" and "pedestrian traffic blocked"

[cslusarc]

@rrskylar, wouldn't they're be greater capacity if most through vehicular traffic (excluding buses and large commercial trucks) on Main Street didn't have to stop @ red lights at Portage Ave?

[OTA in Winnipeg]

They should do a test run of the required light sequences for pedestrians with the barricades still up. At least then it could be tweaked for the best possible outcome for vehicular traffic. Assuming of course that this is going to happen anyway.

[jmt18325]

It's amazing that people can get through other intersections.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

It's amazing that people can get through other intersections.

This one is very unique though. The two main thoroughfares comverging downtown in a city with no freeways.