Winnipeg | Portage and Main

[oftheMoon]

While most of the ped/cyclist collisions injuries are happening on main or arterial streets, there is still zero harm setting a 30kmh limit on residential streets. It's a great place to start slowing down traffic.

And as someone pointed out, lots of people cut through residential streets now at a solid 50kmh to avoid traffic on main/arterial streets, so a 30kmh limit would hopefully create a better pedestrian environment.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by CoryB

As you might be able to tell my opposition to the plan wasn't looked at in isolation and just maintaining the status quo out of ignorance. There are real issues that the plan needs to address first, the top of which is the impact of transit and what changes could be made to make transit a more viable choice to origin and destination traffic throughout downtown Winnipeg as a whole. On a high level my thinking is we need to get that BUS rapid transit fully built out city-wide and with routes that don't depend on keeping the status quo for Portage and Main. The rapid transit network would then also help take the pressure off the vehicle counts through the intersection and enable discussions on the merits of possible changes..

Are you seriously suggesting that we need to build out the entire rapid transit network before we tackle P&M? Unreasonable and ridiculous expense, both in time and money, to justify a common sense project. That said, I don't disagree that RT needs to take a front seat in helping reduce congestion.

You don't build a shiny new office tower without getting the supporting foundation in place first. Opening Portage and Main to pedestrians is the same thing -- you need the supports in place before you make the changes..

What utter shit. I would argue that your premise is exactly backwards. It is the fostering of a friendly pedestrian environment that acts as a foundation for the expansion of your transit upgrades, i.e. your big shiny new office tower. If all you ever provide is a place for cars to drive, you end up with everyone driving cars shockingly. What a concept!

As for comparing Portage and Main to other intersections in Winnipeg, how about the similar sized Kennaston and Sterling Lyon?

Apples and oranges. Kenaston is an 80km/h roadway there, and Sterling Lyon is in that neighbourhood in terms of speed too. By the way, not sure if you watched the video in your link, but judging by the footage, that collision took place an awfully long way from the intersection itself. Not sure if this is supposed to act as an indictment of P&M opening but it seems like a bit of a strawman if you ask me.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Because the change is simply not needed. Basically four buildings east of Main St are impacted in a slightly negative way by the status quo.

Changing that would have negative ripple effects throughout downtown and likely result in a net loss of businesses downtown not to mention the added costs to transit.

As proposed last year the cost benefit analysis did not support the plan as presented.

"Team Close Minded Open" fails to grasp those basic concepts which is why they lost the vote.

By paragraph:

1. Misleading. Obviously the properties at the intersection are doing ok, but they would, as would life downtown, be doing better. Access, ingress/egress, user mobility (which is vehicular AND pedestrian) are of premium importance to property owners and proespective tenants. So kinda necessary. this has been discussed ad nauseum.

2. Absolutely fucking not. Businesses LOVE pedestrian access. Offices LOVE pedestrian access. Team closed forgets that any tiddly increase in traffic time is more than offset by pedestrian activity. Why do you think that landlords frequently conduct pedestrian counts and condo projects proudly display their walk scores?

3. Lol, on what basis? A one year evaluation? 5? We have a social and economic limiter permanently in place at our primary corner. We couldn't quantify it accurately but damn, 10-20M is a pittance compared to other civic projects.

4. Team Closed is the closed minded one. They were presented with reports, facts, and intellegent arguments, and rejected it all. Sorry.

I get this forum can be an echo chamber but how have you not adjusted your position yet?

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

If they actually cared about pedestrian safety they would be pushing for traffic calming. Somehow I doubt the Team Closed folks are embracing the 30km speed limit idea.

Nobody should embrace a 30 kmh speed limit.

Life is busy, and it's not a guarantee. 50kmh is slow, pay attention and keep your head on a swivel. It shouldn't be society's goal to dumb everything down to foolproof levels because we'll find something else to get foolhardy over anyway.

Short of small towns, Winnipeggers are the slowest drivers I can recall out of any city. Perhaps the dopiest also. THAT needs to be tackled. Education, not punishing every behaviour.

[Pinus]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Short of small towns, Winnipeggers are the slowest drivers I can recall out of any city. Perhaps the dopiest also. THAT needs to be tackled. Education, not punishing every behaviour.

You're clearly never driven in cities in Northern Australia

[Pinus]

It really will be nice to finally have P&M opened one day, showing how traffic will only be minimally affected, have the "no" side finally proven wrong, and have this topic be put to the grave once and for all

[OTA in Winnipeg]

For those talking 30 km/hr in residential everywhere, what? That is painfully slow and just frankly, stupid. You must not be regular drivers.

[Gm0ney]

Originally Posted by oftheMoon

While most of the ped/cyclist collisions injuries are happening on main or arterial streets, there is still zero harm setting a 30kmh limit on residential streets. It's a great place to start slowing down traffic.

And as someone pointed out, lots of people cut through residential streets now at a solid 50kmh to avoid traffic on main/arterial streets, so a 30kmh limit would hopefully create a better pedestrian environment.

I used to live in River Heights and my sleepy residential street was crazy busy most of the day, but especially at rush hour. I had 3 little kids playing outside and 50km/h seemed pretty damn fast.

Unfortunately, River Heights has no good North/South options from Stafford to Kenaston. I imagine there was a better plan for that at one time but it got NIMBY'd to death.

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I would hazard a guess that I have walked more downtown in total and on more different streets than most of team open.



As you might be able to tell my opposition to the plan wasn't looked at in isolation and just maintaining the status quo out of ignorance.

I'll go with your opposition being based in arrogance.

[asher__jo]

Originally Posted by OTA in Winnipeg

For those talking 30 km/hr in residential everywhere, what? That is painfully slow and just frankly, stupid. You must not be regular drivers.

Watch a video of stopping distance difference between 30 & 50 km. It's the difference between someone being injured and a person getting killed.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Gm0ney

I used to live in River Heights and my sleepy residential street was crazy busy most of the day, but especially at rush hour. I had 3 little kids playing outside and 50km/h seemed pretty damn fast.

Unfortunately, River Heights has no good North/South options from Stafford to Kenaston. I imagine there was a better plan for that at one time but it got NIMBY'd to death.

This is the point that gets missed in the whole grid network versus suburban road layout debate. In suburbs, traffic is funneled on purpose to the streets that are built to handle them. Residential bays and cul de sacs don't have speeding, because no one is cutting through. While the grid is said to be more permeable and gives you more route options, it has the unintended consequence of people using residential streets as short cuts.

[morty]

Originally Posted by Gm0ney

Unfortunately, River Heights has no good North/South options from Stafford to Kenaston. I imagine there was a better plan for that at one time but it got NIMBY'd to death.

Waverley was originally intended to be a major street, even including a bridge over the river to connect with Aubrey on the north side.

If I'm remembering correctly, the plans got cancelled in the late 80s and the city built the sewage bridge and sold off the rest of the right-of-way at the river to prevent the bridge from ever being built in the future.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

Originally Posted by asher__jo

Watch a video of stopping distance difference between 30 & 50 km. It's the difference between someone being injured and a person getting killed.

Shall we bubble wrap the whole world? This conversation seems like people think that there are people being run down left, right and center when that's not happening at all. Further, don't people train their children anymore or are they all thicker than usual these days or something? In a pinch I'd settle for 40 km/hr as being far more reasonable.

[oftheMoon]

Quantifying 30km vs 40km vs 50km. If an average residential block is 400m, the time it takes to travel is as follows:

30km - 48 seconds
40km - 36 seconds
50km - 29 seconds

[plrh]

I think 40 is ideal. The 30km/h school zones should also be raised to 40, but with continued enforcement. I drive most of the length of Grosvenor home every day, and I would be upset if I had to switch to Corydon because the speed limit was lowered.

As a cyclist it bothers me when cars won't quickly pass me. I don't like riding beside them. This happens in school zones a lot (and in Assiniboine Park).

[pspeid]

I think a lot of traffic speed frustration is as much driver perception as actual time spent behind the wheel. Two friends of mine once tested how much time it would take each of them to drive from West Kildonan to Charleswood, through town, if one sped, raced through yellow lights, changed lanes aggressively, etc. and the other just poked along at the speed limit, stopped at lights normally, etc. The "speeder" reached their destination 39 seconds faster than the cautious driver.

Of course this is just anecdotal, but I think it's a fair point. Too many people are glued to idea that opening P & M will cause them unbearable delays which, in fact, would be relatively short in most cases.

BTW-I also experienced a reckless hurried river who illegally passed my car in a left turn lane to race through the light at Leila and Main. He sped up Leila, changed lanes frequently (got stopped at the same lights I did) and we ended up at the same destination; Home Depot. He go there 12 seconds before me. Seriously, how fragile an ego do you have to have to need to get to Home Depot 12 seconds in front of another car??

[robertocarlos]

e-bikes are allowed to go 32 kph on bike paths. They weigh over 200 lbs. That's a 350 lb total doing 32 kph. If it hits you, you are dead.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by robertocarlos

e-bikes are allowed to go 32 kph on bike paths. They weigh over 200 lbs. That's a 350 lb total doing 32 kph. If it hits you, you are dead.

This is more than a little dramatic. An average commuting cyclist is probably going close to that pace (probably around 20-25 km/h) so it's not like the ebike is going at some unbelievable rate of speed.

[robertocarlos]

Originally Posted by esquire

This is more than a little dramatic. An average commuting cyclist is probably going close to that pace (probably around 20-25 km/h) so it's not like the ebike is going at some unbelievable rate of speed.

What about kids? Are they not allowed on bike paths? Or are bike paths only for commuting? The speeds on Assiniboine bike path are nowhere near the speed this e-bike was traveling at when it passed me.

Also the force of an e-bike is going to be 4 or more times the force of a bike at the same speed. The weight is a bigger concern.

[robertocarlos]

Originally Posted by esquire

This is more than a little dramatic. An average commuting cyclist is probably going close to that pace (probably around 20-25 km/h) so it's not like the ebike is going at some unbelievable rate of speed.

The asshole on the e-bike passed me at 30 plus KPH when I was doing 3-5 kph and he didn't have the common courtesy to slow down or warn me with a bell.
An accident is going to happen and someone will be hurt badly.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by robertocarlos

The asshole on the e-bike passed me at 30 plus KPH when I was doing 3-5 kph and he didn't have the common courtesy to slow down or warn me with a bell.
An accident is going to happen and someone will be hurt badly.

The point I'm trying to make is why are e-bikes the villain here... someone on a regular bicycle could easily be exceeding 30 on a path. It's not like e-bikes have suddenly created a never before seen issue.

One problem that I do see emerging is the tendency to treat cycling infrastructure as existing for the purpose of fun and recreation as opposed to actual transportation. It's changing, but it still exists to some extent. So you end up with situations like these mixed use paths where you can have cyclists (whether on conventional or ebikes) ripping up and down the same paths where kids might be riding a little two-wheeled scooter, or seniors might be going for a leisurely stroll. But that problem exists whether or not you have e-bikes in the equation.