HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2007, 1:41 PM
h0twired's Avatar
h0twired h0twired is offline
Dynamic Positivity!
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntotheWest View Post
In this case, it's not really "planned", so most residents don't see it coming. That area though suburban is quite nice. Also, noise is arguably only one factor as to why folks move to the burbs.

I still don't see what the benefit of this extension to Chief Peguis Tr would be...I just hope residents in the area are voicing their opinions about it.
The extension is being built because the same residents were complaining about the fact that there was too much traffic on streets like Springfield and McIvor.

They are basically getting what they asked for.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2007, 1:44 PM
Biff's Avatar
Biff Biff is offline
What could go wrong?
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,545
^^^We are and almost every one wants it because every east west street is choked (McLeod, Springfield, McIvor, Knowles) with people trying to get from Lag to Henderson. I won't even travel down Springfield any more because it is such a pain in the ass.

They should have an open house sometime this month with displays of the design and constrruction should start with the trenching in spring.

My only major issue is the lights and intersection at Gateway. What a missed opportunity to do it right. You just know that they are never going to get around to putting in a underpass there in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2007, 7:05 PM
IntotheWest's Avatar
IntotheWest IntotheWest is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okotoks (Calgary)
Posts: 2,916
^Really?? I don't know how many times I had to go down Springfield when I was there in August, and it wasn't bad at all...even if it is bad, it takes what 2 extra minutes to make that drive? I may understand beefing up Springfield from Raleigh to Lag - as that was always kinda poor. But the rest is a huge mistake.

I'm surprised its the residents that complained about that. Springfield and McIvor were always meant to be the main streets going E-W through there...if anything, they should try to just improve these (remove stop signs with lights, or remove them altogether would be a start).
__________________
Download Google Earth 4 "Calgary Downtown" Collection of buildings here - http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2007, 7:51 PM
h0twired's Avatar
h0twired h0twired is offline
Dynamic Positivity!
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntotheWest View Post
^Really?? I don't know how many times I had to go down Springfield when I was there in August, and it wasn't bad at all...even if it is bad, it takes what 2 extra minutes to make that drive? I may understand beefing up Springfield from Raleigh to Lag - as that was always kinda poor. But the rest is a huge mistake.

I'm surprised its the residents that complained about that. Springfield and McIvor were always meant to be the main streets going E-W through there...if anything, they should try to just improve these (remove stop signs with lights, or remove them altogether would be a start).
McIvor was actually closed to through traffic for a while.

The new counselor in the area got elected basically because he promised to remove the concrete barriers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2007, 1:48 AM
newflyer's Avatar
newflyer newflyer is offline
Capitalist
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,088
It should also be noted that this extension of Chief Peguis has been on the books long before Chief Peguis even exsisted.. as it will close the last segment of the inner expressway loop (Route 90 - Bishop Grandin - Lagimodier - Chief Peguis). They were talking about the development of this loop since the 80's, if not eariler. As the traffic in this area rose the push to get it done has risen. It will be the last leg of this transportation circuit.

I am looking forward to seeing it completed.. but I agree that they would build it right the first time, with interchanges... especially at Lag.
__________________
Check out my city at
http://www.allwinnipeg.com **More than Ever**
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2007, 5:23 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 newflyer View Post
It should also be noted that this extension of Chief Peguis has been on the books long before Chief Peguis even exsisted.. as it will close the last segment of the inner expressway loop (Route 90 - Bishop Grandin - Lagimodier - Chief Peguis). They were talking about the development of this loop since the 80's, if not eariler. As the traffic in this area rose the push to get it done has risen. It will be the last leg of this transportation circuit.

I am looking forward to seeing it completed.. but I agree that they would build it right the first time, with interchanges... especially at Lag.
Tears well up in my eyes everytime I drive down Lag. I think of the photo cameras they installed and all the places where traffic lights were added.

Damn, it coulda been a beautiful thing.
__________________
WINNIPEG: Home of Canada's first skyscraper!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2007, 5:25 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
I orginally posted this in 'Winnipeg Construction', but since this seems to be a traffic related thread...


Traffic signal upgrades speed traffic flow

Updated at 6:49 PM | Winnipeg Free Press | Oct. 2

Kenaston Boulevard is the first major street in Winnipeg to benefit from a $12-million plan to speed up the flow of vehicles within the city by synchronizing traffic signals.

On Sept. 19, city traffic engineers completed a three-month, $50,000 upgrade of 12 traffic signals on Kenaston between Academy Road and Bishop Grandin Boulevard, city officials and Mayor Sam Katz said this morning.

The hardware and software upgrades have increased the average rush-hour speed along Kenaston from a 20-to-30 kph crawl to a speedier 40-to-45 kph drive, Katz said.

It has also reduced idling times at Corydon Avenue, Grant Avenue and McGillivray Boulevard, he said.

The city plans to spend an additional $450,000 this year on more upgrades to the Kenaston signals as well as plans to synchronize traffic signals on 11 other city routes over the next five years. City council plans to spend $11.5 million on the remaining improvements.

Kenaston was chosen to be receive the upgrades first because some of the traffic signals on the north-south route had been replaced three years ago, traffic engineer Luis Escobar said.


Traffic signals on other city streets are up to 79 years old, making it more difficult to install new technology, he said
__________________
WINNIPEG: Home of Canada's first skyscraper!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2007, 5:13 PM
IntotheWest's Avatar
IntotheWest IntotheWest is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okotoks (Calgary)
Posts: 2,916
^79 years old? Wow.
__________________
Download Google Earth 4 "Calgary Downtown" Collection of buildings here - http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2007, 5:26 PM
Lee_Haber8 Lee_Haber8 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by newflyer View Post
I don't buy into the misplaced threory that new roads and expanded roadways increase traffic by themselves.

The reality is as transporting goods by truck and people by cars becomes more affordable there is a growing demand for roadway infrastructure. In addition to trading patterns which have incourged more and larger distribution centres. All these things have played at part in an increase in demand for road capacity.

Winnipeg is and will continue to invest in increasing this capacity as needed. As we move forword I believe that the trasportation industry will see significnat growth in the local economy.... and will require better commercial routes.
Misplaced Theory? It has been shown again and again that you cannot build yourself out of congestion. The only true way to reduce congestion is to implement road pricing. Building better public transit and planning in a way that encourages walking and cycling can help replace car passenger traffic with goods traffic - like it was back in the early twentieth century. Advances in society happen when we use resources more efficiently and effectively and the private automobile is an incredibly inefficient and expensive way of moving large numbers of people. Think about the capital cost of a car, along with maintenance and the cost of repairing the roads they use. Think about how a light-rail line moves the same number of people as eight-lanes of freeway traffic using far less land, money and without ruining the area it goes through. So by moving away from cars and automobile infrastructure we are in effect improving the environment, the economy and society.
__________________
www.winnipegrapidtransit.ca
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2007, 5:59 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is online now
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 8,738
It is difficult to "build your way out of congestion" because the speed at which traffic flows reflects what people are willing to endure. Otherwise they wouldn't be out there. So when you build a new road, or expand capacity, generally traffic will increase until you hit that minimum level of speed (which looks like "congestion") once again, beyond which traffic will cease to increase because people continue to be unwilling to drive any slower. The thing your analysis misses is that having built the new capacity, many more people are able to travel at that minimum endurable speed. That's the advantage and why the new road is economically productive. It's not (usually) because it transports the same number of people significantly faster, but because it transports more people at the same speed.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 2:12 AM
Lee_Haber8 Lee_Haber8 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
It is difficult to "build your way out of congestion" because the speed at which traffic flows reflects what people are willing to endure. Otherwise they wouldn't be out there. So when you build a new road, or expand capacity, generally traffic will increase until you hit that minimum level of speed (which looks like "congestion") once again, beyond which traffic will cease to increase because people continue to be unwilling to drive any slower. The thing your analysis misses is that having built the new capacity, many more people are able to travel at that minimum endurable speed. That's the advantage and why the new road is economically productive. It's not (usually) because it transports the same number of people significantly faster, but because it transports more people at the same speed.
I agree, obviously you are going to move more people with more road - but it's a very poor, inefficient way of moving more people. If you ran LRT down the middle of Portage Avenue you would in effect double the volume of people that the street can move without having to spend hundreds of millions of dollars expropriating land. Property values would also like go up around rapid transit, compared to if you converted it into a sixteen-lane freeway which would gut the area and cause values to collapse.
__________________
www.winnipegrapidtransit.ca
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2007, 2:19 AM
J-MAN's Avatar
J-MAN J-MAN is offline
high expectations
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North of Winnipeg
Posts: 556


agreed, Build the damn transit route!!?!?

isnt there tons of government equilization payments as well


I personaly think the pembina route is deffintily one of the best routes for rapid transit
__________________
I am not ashamed to say I have Aspergers, Schizophrenia, and Anxiety.
___________
My Saint Andrews (in winter) Photo thread (Jan 2012).

My Hoar Frost Photo Thread (Feb 2012).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2007, 12:48 AM
newflyer's Avatar
newflyer newflyer is offline
Capitalist
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8 View Post
I agree, obviously you are going to move more people with more road - but it's a very poor, inefficient way of moving more people. If you ran LRT down the middle of Portage Avenue you would in effect double the volume of people that the street can move without having to spend hundreds of millions of dollars expropriating land. Property values would also like go up around rapid transit, compared to if you converted it into a sixteen-lane freeway which would gut the area and cause values to collapse.
LOL... Winnipeg ... 16 lane freeway???

I have driven on the New Jersey Turnpike .. a 16 lane free access super-highway. It is an incredible roadway.. and needless to say it is a major economic link that feeds the eastcoast regional economies of various large metropolises, without such high volume roadways the regional economies would suffer greatly. All the LRT's in the world would do nothing to replace that commercial route.

Winnipeg will not require such a roadway until Manitoba reaches 10 million people .. ie: not for a few thousand years.

Winnipeg will continue to see its commercial routes developed to hand traffic more efficiently.... as it is a nessesity in a city which is actively trying to build the local transportation industry.
__________________
Check out my city at
http://www.allwinnipeg.com **More than Ever**
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2007, 12:53 AM
newflyer's Avatar
newflyer newflyer is offline
Capitalist
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,088
I am looking forward to seeing routes like Lagimodier upgraded towards more a freeflowing roadway.

It will great when Winnipeg will be able to offer modern commercial roadway infrastructure...
__________________
Check out my city at
http://www.allwinnipeg.com **More than Ever**
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2007, 1:22 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8 View Post
Misplaced Theory? It has been shown again and again that you cannot build yourself out of congestion. The only true way to reduce congestion is to implement road pricing. Building better public transit and planning in a way that encourages walking and cycling can help replace car passenger traffic with goods traffic - like it was back in the early twentieth century. Advances in society happen when we use resources more efficiently and effectively and the private automobile is an incredibly inefficient and expensive way of moving large numbers of people. Think about the capital cost of a car, along with maintenance and the cost of repairing the roads they use. Think about how a light-rail line moves the same number of people as eight-lanes of freeway traffic using far less land, money and without ruining the area it goes through. So by moving away from cars and automobile infrastructure we are in effect improving the environment, the economy and society.
I've never posted before so hopefully I'm doing this right!

I can't get over how many people in this forum buy into the notion that you can't build your way out of congestion and that roads create traffic etc. It has been proven that roads do not create more traffic by themselves which really isn't surprising when you think about it. It is economic prosperity that helps people buy cars and social engineering and inept road planners that cause congestion.

As for your point about light rail being so efficient in moving people I have to disagree with your notions despite the fact that they keep getting mentioned over and over by the anti-car lobby. I'll take Calgary, where I live, as an example. Our Mayor during the current election campaign has said he wants the city to build a new LRT line that will cost about $700 or $750 million. The line is going to have 5 stations I believe and be about 6.5 km. long. In other words, nothing special. This line is supposed to handle the equivalent of two lanes of free flowing traffic--at least that's what I read and it makes more sense than the eight lane figure you mention. LRT might handle massive amounts of people but it only does so at certain times and if you happen to being going where it goes. Which in Calgary usually means downtown during rushhour or home at the end of the day.

As a counter example, the province in a P3 deal is building a 21 km. stretch of freeway that will be totally freeflow with a number of interchanges and flyovers and be setup to handle expansion in the future. The cost is something like $930 million but this includes all of the maintenance work for 30 years. The LRT figure of $750 million doesn't include any extra costs.

Which brings up another point. Transit isn't nearly as cost effective as some people want us to believe. Last year or two years ago Calgary bought 32 LRT cars for $128 million or $4 million/car. I believe we got a deal because we piggybacked on to the order another city had placed. In the next year or so the city needs to spend a considerable amount of money replacing old cars. And once the system grinds to complete a halt downtown they'll be forced to build a tunnel. But before that happens they'll waste between $150 and $200 million redesign the current stations. I know someone else from Calgary will dispute that last point but having lived here my entire life I'll go with my experience over what should be common sense.

Any city in Western Canada with decent planners and given all of the gas tax money that drivers pay should easily be able to build a road system that efficiently and effectively moves drivers around the city. Not to mention that it would be fully paid for unlike transit where fares only pay for about 35% of operating costs in Calgary and none of the capital costs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2007, 2:00 AM
newflyer's Avatar
newflyer newflyer is offline
Capitalist
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
I've never posted before so hopefully I'm doing this right!

I can't get over how many people in this forum buy into the notion that you can't build your way out of congestion and that roads create traffic etc. It has been proven that roads do not create more traffic by themselves which really isn't surprising when you think about it. It is economic prosperity that helps people buy cars and social engineering and inept road planners that cause congestion.

As for your point about light rail being so efficient in moving people I have to disagree with your notions despite the fact that they keep getting mentioned over and over by the anti-car lobby. I'll take Calgary, where I live, as an example. Our Mayor during the current election campaign has said he wants the city to build a new LRT line that will cost about $700 or $750 million. The line is going to have 5 stations I believe and be about 6.5 km. long. In other words, nothing special. This line is supposed to handle the equivalent of two lanes of free flowing traffic--at least that's what I read and it makes more sense than the eight lane figure you mention. LRT might handle massive amounts of people but it only does so at certain times and if you happen to being going where it goes. Which in Calgary usually means downtown during rushhour or home at the end of the day.

As a counter example, the province in a P3 deal is building a 21 km. stretch of freeway that will be totally freeflow with a number of interchanges and flyovers and be setup to handle expansion in the future. The cost is something like $930 million but this includes all of the maintenance work for 30 years. The LRT figure of $750 million doesn't include any extra costs.

Which brings up another point. Transit isn't nearly as cost effective as some people want us to believe. Last year or two years ago Calgary bought 32 LRT cars for $128 million or $4 million/car. I believe we got a deal because we piggybacked on to the order another city had placed. In the next year or so the city needs to spend a considerable amount of money replacing old cars. And once the system grinds to complete a halt downtown they'll be forced to build a tunnel. But before that happens they'll waste between $150 and $200 million redesign the current stations. I know someone else from Calgary will dispute that last point but having lived here my entire life I'll go with my experience over what should be common sense.

Any city in Western Canada with decent planners and given all of the gas tax money that drivers pay should easily be able to build a road system that efficiently and effectively moves drivers around the city. Not to mention that it would be fully paid for unlike transit where fares only pay for about 35% of operating costs in Calgary and none of the capital costs.
First... welcome to skyscraperpage.


Second.. your comments are very well stated. Calgary is witnessing its transit system grinding down ..while the bill to upgrade the current system is looking to exceed several hundred million dollars... replacing and adding cars .. and upgrading the older stations to handle 4 cars.. PLUS three quarters of a Billion to add new 6 stop line.

Roadways have proven to be vastly superior at handling trafic, no to mention it has much greater freedom for destination. Winnipeg is not the downtown centric city that Calgary is. In addition Winnipeg relies on its transportaion industry to a much higher degree than Calgary to support the economy.... I don't see large amounts of distribution of goods moving on the Sommerset Line ine Calgary.. and I don't think Winnipeg would either.
__________________
Check out my city at
http://www.allwinnipeg.com **More than Ever**
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2007, 5:52 PM
feepa's Avatar
feepa feepa is offline
Change is good
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,759
^^^ Yes, imagine Calgarys roads now with an extra 200,000 vehicles on the road if there was no LRT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2007, 10:34 PM
J-MAN's Avatar
J-MAN J-MAN is offline
high expectations
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North of Winnipeg
Posts: 556
no shit, that'd be living hell to the calgary suburbanites who choose to live there in the first place
__________________
I am not ashamed to say I have Aspergers, Schizophrenia, and Anxiety.
___________
My Saint Andrews (in winter) Photo thread (Jan 2012).

My Hoar Frost Photo Thread (Feb 2012).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2007, 5:15 AM
spiritedenergy's Avatar
spiritedenergy spiritedenergy is offline
A long time gone
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Great Spirit Land
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
I've never posted before so hopefully I'm doing this right!

I can't get over how many people in this forum buy into the notion that you can't build your way out of congestion and that roads create traffic etc. It has been proven that roads do not create more traffic by themselves which really isn't surprising when you think about it. It is economic prosperity that helps people buy cars and social engineering and inept road planners that cause congestion.

As for your point about light rail being so efficient in moving people I have to disagree with your notions despite the fact that they keep getting mentioned over and over by the anti-car lobby. I'll take Calgary, where I live, as an example. Our Mayor during the current election campaign has said he wants the city to build a new LRT line that will cost about $700 or $750 million. The line is going to have 5 stations I believe and be about 6.5 km. long. In other words, nothing special. This line is supposed to handle the equivalent of two lanes of free flowing traffic--at least that's what I read and it makes more sense than the eight lane figure you mention. LRT might handle massive amounts of people but it only does so at certain times and if you happen to being going where it goes. Which in Calgary usually means downtown during rushhour or home at the end of the day.

As a counter example, the province in a P3 deal is building a 21 km. stretch of freeway that will be totally freeflow with a number of interchanges and flyovers and be setup to handle expansion in the future. The cost is something like $930 million but this includes all of the maintenance work for 30 years. The LRT figure of $750 million doesn't include any extra costs.

Which brings up another point. Transit isn't nearly as cost effective as some people want us to believe. Last year or two years ago Calgary bought 32 LRT cars for $128 million or $4 million/car. I believe we got a deal because we piggybacked on to the order another city had placed. In the next year or so the city needs to spend a considerable amount of money replacing old cars. And once the system grinds to complete a halt downtown they'll be forced to build a tunnel. But before that happens they'll waste between $150 and $200 million redesign the current stations. I know someone else from Calgary will dispute that last point but having lived here my entire life I'll go with my experience over what should be common sense.

Any city in Western Canada with decent planners and given all of the gas tax money that drivers pay should easily be able to build a road system that efficiently and effectively moves drivers around the city. Not to mention that it would be fully paid for unlike transit where fares only pay for about 35% of operating costs in Calgary and none of the capital costs.
sorry to say: a pile of crap.
__________________
"Perdedar-i mikuned der kasr-i kayser ankebut
bu növbet mizenet der bertarimi Afrasyab."

-------------
"The spider spins his web in the Palace of the Caesars,
An owl hoots in the towers of Afrasiyab."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2007, 6:12 AM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
I've never posted before so hopefully I'm doing this right!

I can't get over how many people in this forum buy into the notion that you can't build your way out of congestion and that roads create traffic etc. It has been proven that roads do not create more traffic by themselves which really isn't surprising when you think about it. It is economic prosperity that helps people buy cars and social engineering and inept road planners that cause congestion.

As for your point about light rail being so efficient in moving people I have to disagree with your notions despite the fact that they keep getting mentioned over and over by the anti-car lobby. I'll take Calgary, where I live, as an example. Our Mayor during the current election campaign has said he wants the city to build a new LRT line that will cost about $700 or $750 million. The line is going to have 5 stations I believe and be about 6.5 km. long. In other words, nothing special. This line is supposed to handle the equivalent of two lanes of free flowing traffic--at least that's what I read and it makes more sense than the eight lane figure you mention. LRT might handle massive amounts of people but it only does so at certain times and if you happen to being going where it goes. Which in Calgary usually means downtown during rushhour or home at the end of the day.

As a counter example, the province in a P3 deal is building a 21 km. stretch of freeway that will be totally freeflow with a number of interchanges and flyovers and be setup to handle expansion in the future. The cost is something like $930 million but this includes all of the maintenance work for 30 years. The LRT figure of $750 million doesn't include any extra costs.

Which brings up another point. Transit isn't nearly as cost effective as some people want us to believe. Last year or two years ago Calgary bought 32 LRT cars for $128 million or $4 million/car. I believe we got a deal because we piggybacked on to the order another city had placed. In the next year or so the city needs to spend a considerable amount of money replacing old cars. And once the system grinds to complete a halt downtown they'll be forced to build a tunnel. But before that happens they'll waste between $150 and $200 million redesign the current stations. I know someone else from Calgary will dispute that last point but having lived here my entire life I'll go with my experience over what should be common sense.

Any city in Western Canada with decent planners and given all of the gas tax money that drivers pay should easily be able to build a road system that efficiently and effectively moves drivers around the city. Not to mention that it would be fully paid for unlike transit where fares only pay for about 35% of operating costs in Calgary and none of the capital costs.
The fatal flaw in the argument is that the road capacity in the inner city is finite. Even if you were able to deliver more cars via freeways into Calgary's core (where most people work) the roads would be so congested the time saved on the freeflow further out would be totally lost upon arrival into the core. If downtown employment is to grow, then the only way to get more people in is by other ways, either transit, walking or cycling.
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 9:30 PM.

     

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