unhappy Winnipegger

[UrbanPlannerr]

I joined this thread mostly because It bothers me to live in a north american city of 750, 000 people that has a major Ring Road (trans - canada highway) that is not a freeway, when other smaller cities like Regina and Halifax would have it as a freeway.

Yes, I know this has been talked about before, http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=137983&page=2 but it seems that the message got lost in trying to explain whether road or lrt is better at promoting sprawl.. in calgary???.. and not why winnipeg really doesnt have any freeways.. is it really because the province of manitoba and the city of winnipeg choose not to spend money on upgrading highways?/ for other reasons unknown, possibly everyone else on this continent sees freeways as a necessity whereas manitoba does not?

Does anyone know of any links that can compare the amount of cars on certain roadways in winnipeg, particularly between roads in and around winnipeg to freeways like the deerfoot or circumferential hwy?

BTW, when a city is designed the way Winnipeg is, being a "freeway free city " is not something to be proud of...

I also joined because I think Winnipeg could be so much more, I know Winnipeg has made some improvements recently in terms of downtown residential populations, but I think more needs to be done to encourage this, then I believe more businesses that bring people downtown will grow (businesses like restaurants for example, that seem to flourish in places like pembina highway in Fort Richmond, when they could instead be flourishing downtown)

[trueviking]

traffic shmaffic....move closer to where you work and find something better to complain about.

traffic is about number 347 on the list of winnipeg's problems...if you can name a city with fewer traffic issues than winnipeg, i would love to hear it.

why exactly is winnipeg embarassing compared to halifax and regina?

[drew]

Originally Posted by UrbanPlannerr

BTW, when a city is designed the way Winnipeg is, being a "freeway free city " is not something to be proud of...

I am not sure what exactly this thread is supposed to be about..?

Personally I don't see what the big deal is about "expressways" in cities in the size range of say Winnipeg.

I've driven around Calgary quite a bit, and the expressway system there is great after hours, or when traffic is light, but otherwise it can be a disaster that you cannot avoid if you need to go anywhere.

The beauty about Winnipeg is that for the most part there are about a multiple of different ways that you can use to get to any one point.

In my personal situation, traffic is a non-issue. I live in Wolseley and work downtown. I have no rivers to cross, and I usually walk to work.

Traffic is a lifestyle choice in Winnipeg, not an economic necessity, as somewhere like Toronto where house+yard=commute. If you want to live somewhere where you don't have to deal with gridlock down Pembina or Waverly, you can. Actually, it's usually cheaper to live where I live and avoid traffic as compared to those swanky new developments upwind of the dump. Go figure.

[vid]

"you will never need to sit at a light turing left more then one cycle anywhere in winnipeg"

Obviously a lie, there are places in Thunder Bay where it can take more than five cycles to clear an intersection.

Winnipeg wasn't really "designed" in any way, much of it predates comprehensive urban planning. The French settlers laid out long lots running perpendicular to the rivers and the city simply maintained that because it is easier than removing entire rural road networks like Calgary does. Windsor is the same way, many of their new suburbs actually maintain the grid. The simple fact is to build a freeway in Winnipeg, because it got so big so early, would require the demolition of thousands of structures and the expropriation of thousands of properties to make it possible. Probably why the ring road is so far outside of the city, instead of bisecting it like the ring roads in Regina, Dartmouth and Thunder Bay. The only place where ours runs through the middle of an urban area is through a neighbourhood that, at the time, was sparsely populated.

[UrbanPlannerr]

The real point of the thread was that I dislike the fact that the perimeter is not a freeway when places like Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Ontario have many freeways, it just seems embarrassing....

the rest I just basically trailed off onto another subject (the fact that downtown winnipeg needs a more solid residential population)

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by vid

Obviously a lie, there are places in Thunder Bay where it can take more than five cycles to clear an intersection.

really?...i've never sat through more than two cycles of a light at any time in winnipeg...and that is very rare...

people who complain about traffic in winnipeg have never been anywhere else.

its a myth that freeways solve traffic problems...freeways cause sprawl which only increases traffic...be glad we have no freeways...look what happened the second an underpass was built on kenaston, waverly west, the ikea retail development....pipelines to the burbs cause sprawl.

if you want to live 20kms from where you work, you deserve to sit in traffic....i hope its hot and you have no air conditioning and there is an accident that makes you late for work and you get a ticket at a photo radar intersection and there is a train that you have to wait for and the price of gas doubles and the drive through line at tims is really long and then it snows and the roads are icy so you have to slow down but you still cant stop and you slide into the only tree on your cul de sac but no damage is done because its trunk is only 4" in diameter and it just snapped under your car and you have to park on your driveway because the white door on your attached double car garage is stuck.

i fail to see how removing the few lights on the perimeter would change anything....there is hardly a backlog of traffic there.

[UrbanPlannerr]

i fail to see how removing the few lights on the perimeter would change anything....there is hardly a backlog of traffic there.

the real problem came while sitting in a traffic jam on bishop grandon and driving through south winnipeg's traffic problems which just becomes annoying. The motivation for freeways came from google maps looking at the Maritimes many freeways, as it was more of just "why would they have that when we don't?"

people who complain about traffic in winnipeg have never been anywhere else.

I have actually been to calgary on the deerfoot, when there was no traffic moving at all, and I have seen this type of traffic in Winnipeg as well, obviously not with as many cars though but that is why i wanted to compare for interests sake.


truviking, as for the hateful comments, the reason i live in suburbia is because it was what was affordable at the time. I do not live in a cul de sac, and fail to see your good intentions with these comments.

[UrbanPlannerr]

And yes, in the summer I do enjoy riding my bike, and do travel to and from work by bike every know and than, as well as take the bus every day. What would be even better would be to see a healthy downtown residential population, many bike paths, as well as proper infrastructure. All of this seems to be already happening in Winnipeg, I do not see why this would be so personal to you. You do not have to shove every word of mine down my throat, as many of you seem to enjoy doing. All I was curious about was why the Maritimes spend so much more money on highways, but I guess it is obvious Manitoba is unique in not having freeways and takes pride in this sort of accomplishment and would prefer to have the perimeter stay a at grade expressway. It is fine with me; all I had was simple curiosity.

Although I do feel somewhat bad for the thread title, but couldn't think of anything better.. idk how to change it and if this is the reason so many winnipeggers are offended than please try to look past this before commenting.

A possible thread title could be along the lines of "Winnipeg's Trans-Canada Expressway?"

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by UrbanPlannerr

And yes, in the summer I do enjoy riding my bike, and do travel to and from work by bike every know and than, as well as take the bus every day. What would be even better would be to see a healthy downtown residential population, many bike paths, as well as proper infrastructure. All of this seems to be already happening in Winnipeg, I do not see why this would be so personal to you. You do not have to shove every word of mine down my throat, as many of you seem to enjoy doing. All I was curious about was why the Maritimes spend so much more money on highways, but I guess it is obvious Manitoba is unique in not having freeways and takes pride in this sort of accomplishment and would prefer to have the perimeter stay a at grade expressway. It is fine with me; all I had was simple curiosity.

Although I do feel somewhat bad for the thread title, but couldn't think of anything better.. idk how to change it and if this is the reason so many winnipeggers are offended than please try to look past this before commenting.

A possible thread title could be along the lines of "Winnipeg's Trans-Canada Expressway?"

if winnipeg had gone ahead and built its vast freeway system it had planned we would not have the exchange!!!!! or the forks!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ue]

Originally Posted by UrbanPlannerr

the real problem came while sitting in a traffic jam on bishop grandon and driving through south winnipeg's traffic problems which just becomes annoying. The motivation for freeways came from google maps looking at the Maritimes many freeways, as it was more of just "why would they have that when we don't?"




I have actually been to calgary on the deerfoot, when there was no traffic moving at all, and I have seen this type of traffic in Winnipeg as well, obviously not with as many cars though but that is why i wanted to compare for interests sake.


truviking, as for the hateful comments, the reason i live in suburbia is because it was what was affordable at the time. I do not live in a cul de sac, and fail to see your good intentions with these comments.

The Deerfoot in Calgary has some traffic, but other prairie cities like Winnipeg and Edmonton, and the always mentioned Calgary really do not have traffic issues compared to other places. Really.

[drew]

Originally Posted by UrbanPlannerr

truviking, as for the hateful comments, the reason i live in suburbia is because it was what was affordable at the time. I do not live in a cul de sac, and fail to see your good intentions with these comments.

I'm not sure what time you bought your house, but for my 30 or so years, the most affordable living (in terms of house prices) has always been closer to the core, not in suburbia.

[UrbanPlannerr]

Originally Posted by trueviking

...look what happened the second an underpass was built on kenaston, waverly west, the ikea retail development....pipelines to the burbs cause sprawl.

I'm guessing you are against the city expanding in size?, thus where would the more proper place to put the new ikea be, downtown?

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by UrbanPlannerr

truviking, as for the hateful comments, the reason i live in suburbia is because it was what was affordable at the time. I do not live in a cul de sac, and fail to see your good intentions with these comments.

hateful comments?!...yikes thin skin.

my coments were made in humour to emphasize the point that i could not care less how long you have to sit in traffic to get from your suburban house to wherever you work...if it is a problem for you, move closer to where you work....dont ask the rest of us to pay for a larger road to solve your problem....the costs of sprawl on the city, in urban quality, civic finances and service construction / maintenance are not sustainable and i for one do not want to subsidize your wish to live in the far flung edges of the city....

the longer it takes you and other suburbanites to get to work the better it is for the city....maybe next time you buy a house you will make proximity to the centre a priority....building a bigger road so people can live farther and farther way is not the solution....enabling sprawl is short sighted and in the long run causes far more problems than it solves....i can think of much better ways of spending civic money than building you more roads, schools, water/waste services, snow clearing etc.

freeways do not create better cities...in fact, its generally an inverse relationship...the worst cities on earth in respect to urban form are in the united states....coincidentally the nation with the most freeways.

canadian cities in general are more compact, higher density (twice as dense) and more sustainable because they have fewer freeways than their american counterparts.....it is an absolute fact that freeways cause sprawl....there is a direct relationship to a city's footprint and its freeway system....i will let you research on your own why sprawl is bad for cities.

vancouver is very often touted as one of the best examples of urban form in north america....because it has no freeways...compare it to seattle and you will see the difference.

Originally Posted by UrbanPlannerr

I'm guessing you are against the city expanding in size?, thus where would the more proper place to put the new ikea be, downtown?

you guessed right....i dont think ikea should be downtown, but the 1.5 million square feet of retail that will accompany it and the 8000 surface parking stalls, is nothing but damaging to the city...it only serves to decentralize it further....it is a snowball effect...you build the underpass, and waverly west is more viable, then millions of square feet of retail are built to service it, then we need an underpass at waverly, which causes yet more development even further out...

as the city grows in area, disproportionatly to its growth in population, tax dollars are stretched even thinner to provide all the services the suburbs expect....it is not sustainable, financially, urbanistically or environmentally.

simply put, if one of my tax dollars paid to service 10 square feet of city area (roads, snow clearing, schools, garbage collection etc), but as the city expands and becomes less dense with fewer people to pay for a larger area, that one dollar now has to pay to service 15 square feet, either my taxes are going to go up or my services will decrease....if we can get more people to live in the same area, splitting the cost between more taxpayers, then that dollar might need to pay for only 7 square feet and services will improve or taxes can go down.

are you trying to make the argument that big box retail development is good for the city too?


next time you are at mcnally buy this book:

http://www.amazon.ca/Death-Life-Grea.../dp/067974195X

[DowntownWpg]

Great post above, viking. I hadn't really considered, to that degree, of how freeways can encourage suburban sprawl.

Originally Posted by trueviking

you guessed right....i dont think ikea should be downtown, but the 1.5 million square feet of retail that will accompany it and the 8000 surface parking stalls, is nothing but damaging to the city...it only serves to decentralize it further....it is a snowball effect...you build the underpass, and waverly west is more viable, then millions of square feet of retail are built to service it, then we need an underpass at waverly, which causes yet more development even further out...

Myself, I think that the 150,000 sq feet of 'business park' that will be part of the Ikea project is the most notable threat to downtown, and is a sprawl encourager.

I had wrote before that the proliferation of 'business parks' will be bad for downtown. Topping my list of negativity around business parks:

a) encourage new business opening in or moving to Winnipeg to locate out in the suburbs at the business parks.
b) encourage current downtown businesses to move to the suburban 'business parks,' you know... "because it's safer and the parking is free."
c) encourage workers in said business parks to move closer to work in the burbs, rather than consider living more central.

What upsets me greatly about this whole IKEA stuff, is mainly how Katz & Co. totally bent over backwards for the project as a whole... the project which, of course, includes the 'business park' component.

I highly doubt that the IKEA people would've folded the project for Winnipeg if our Mayor grew a pair of balls and said "no to your business park." Really don't think that the project would be contingent on that. If the land was already zoned as such that a business park could go up, that might be one thing (though I still wouldn't be happy and would want it rezoned so it couldn't happen), but for Katz & Co. to go out of their way to make it happen is extremely counter-productive for our downtown revitalization.

The creation of suburban 'business parks' is, IMO, one of the greatest threats to downtown revitalization (after crime). I mean, the 'business park' for IKEA... 150,000 sq feet... that might be a decent 10-15 floor building (?) in downtown where possibly hundreds of people would work. Damn it!

Recently, I studied that Tuxedo Business Park... the sorts of business in there isn't neighbourhood 'front-line' stores (bakeries, autopac dealers, etc, etc, etc). By far, most were the types of business you would want to see located downtown, in a tower. (ie: high finance, software development, etc).

(150,000 sq foot source)

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by trueviking

vancouver is very often touted as one of the best examples of urban form in north america....because it has no freeways

You're talking about the City of Vancouver PROPER, which comprises about 26% of Metro Vancouver's population. Unlike Unicities such as Calgary or Winnipeg.

On that note, are you aware of the freeway upgrades to Highway 1 with cross-sections as wide as 10 or 14 lanes to be constructed in the near future in Metro Vancouver?

Or other free-flow highways to be constructed in Metro Vancouver as well?

Much needed BTW.

Here are a couple of the schematics described above:

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/PMH1...ce_Concept.pdf

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/PMH1...ce_Concept.pdf

[jmt18325]

So where is the money going to come from? to turn the entire thing into a freeway (and lights will be eliminated over the next few years) would require hundreds of millions of dollars. We can't do that all at once. The lights at Saskatchewan will be gone soon as will the lights at Lagimodiere. There will also be a new arrangement where Waverly connects with the perimeter that will eventually be replaced by an overpass structure when the St. Norbert bypass is built. These things take time, but it will happen. As of now, there isn't really a traffic problem on the perimeter.

[UrbanPlannerr]

I'm guessing st.marys and the perimeter will also be upgraded to a interchange eventually after all of these major improvements as it is also yet another major intersection on the trans canada hwy that is not currently an interchange.

So where is the money going to come from?

Can the government of Canada not help us out a little bit to "catch up" with the rest of the world?

As of now, there isn't really a traffic problem on the perimeter

How does one decide whether there is enough traffic to have either a freeway or an 'expressway'?

[jmt18325]

Look, I'd like a freeway just as much as you, but the reality is that a ) it isn't really a huge deal in the grand scheme of things and b ) Winnipeg and Manitoba already benefit from a large amount of federal money and c ) The perimeter has so far and will continue to see constant improvement over its life. We'll have a freeway (or close to it) some day, but unfortunately, we just have to wait and live with what we have.

The province is spending more money than ever on roads, but it only goes so far.

[UrbanPlannerr]

The province is spending more money than ever on roads, but it only goes so far.

I am guessing the province only spend the large sums of 'road money' on repaving and repairing its highways?

it isn't really a huge deal in the grand scheme of things

Maybe it is not a big deal to Manitoba, but to the rest of the world who decides to build freeways, it is?

We'll have a freeway (or close to it) some day, but unfortunately, we just have to wait and live with what we have.

Yes, I am happy that Winnipeg does not have any downtown Freeways bisecting and taking away from areas that could see urban growth. However, It just seemed to confuse me why other places in Canada can have freeways (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, ect) and Manitoba can not (as the main thing that pops into my head is that we can't afford it. This is when I thought that Canada is a big country and can help out less advantaged provinces to keep proper infustructer in place).

Oh well, I guess it was just a nice thought to imagine a free-flowing road way in manitoba, as I actually enjoy driving many of them (when not super congested, like I have before, and it just becomes a headache ).

Just for fun does anyone have any links to the vehicular traffic on Winnipeg’s major routes so they can in fact be compared to what other provinces decided was enough traffic to warrant a 'freeway'?

[ue]

Originally Posted by UrbanPlannerr

Possibly the rest of Canada and the united states just simply built these freeways before the large amounts of traffic came, where as Winnipeg waits until there is large amounts of traffic, and than builds them?

Uh, no. It's silly to think these things only happen in Winnipeg. Freeways are built after large amount of traffic often times, and are built to alleviate the pressure on city roads and the other highways, but not just in Winnipeg. Many cities don't preplan because there is no way of knowing the traffic patterns in 5, 10, 15, or 20 years. They build when there is demand many times (although not all the time...).