Wpg: Chief Peguis Trail Extension

[bomberjet]

I think what everyone needs to realize is the City is going to fill up it's boundaries no matter how hard we try to get development downtown. Plain and simple. South end is basically full. East end going to be full soon. Charleswood is now getting developed further. So why not the north end?

Not that I agree or disagree. But maybe the development should pay for itself and not rely on handouts. Look at every other city in North America. pretty much everyone has extensive suburban development. So why should Winnipeg be any different. That's where people want to live..

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Reignman

Totally agree. Hold off on CPT extension and fix our current issues first. But since they are moving ahead with CPT....do it right from the start. Forward thinking cities build the infrastructure ahead of time..so before the empty areas surrounding this new roadway fill up with residential, build these interchanges now! Don't wait like they did with Bishop. I assume a major reason why no grade separations have been built at Bishop/StAnnes and Bishop/StMarys is due to the absolute chaos closing off one of those intersections would cause. It's already terrible now, could you imagine the traffic when NB\SB had to use only one of StAnnes or StMarys, and where would Bishop traffic be re-routed to? The city has really put themselves in a bind in this case...so all I am saying is learn from the previous mistakes with Bishop and Lag and do CPT right during the initial build. But we all know Winnipeg never learns from mistakes of administrations past...

Hold off on the CPT extension? Say what, it's been on hold since 1986. Land for the completed east extension had been set aside since the early 1970's until it was finally completed a few years back.

Completely agree with bomberjet's post about developers paying more for the infrastructure in their sprawlaburbia, the half assed two lane roadways that they put into some of the new developments are under capacity before all the homes are even into some of these developments. Concordia through Harbour View South or whatever it's called is a prime example, the land is set aside for four lanes but the developer builds to the bare minimum with a crappy congested two lane roadway.

[cllew]

And the people that live in front of it will complain when Concordia East gets completed to Plessis and finally gets twinned.

"The real estate agent said that it will never happen, we will always have a big boulevard"

[bomberjet]

And when it does happen, call up the realtor and demand your money back. Concordia's is going to get real busy, real soon. Part of the development plans are to upgrade the interchange at Lag, which will include twinning at least a portion of that road. Upgrade will mostly just be proper lanes, stop signs/lights, that kind of stuff.

I find the Cities argument on not twinning Concordia west of Molson a bit strange. They say there's not enough traffic to warrant the twinning. But maybe they don't realize this, but people avoid using Concordia because it's in horrendous condition! If the road was actually driveable, many more people would use it, reducing traffic and wear on all the other surrounding roads. It seems so simple, and it really is that simple. But the City just doesn't get it. I think they get there are zero 4 lane, east-west roads in River East, except for Chief. Why not try and complete at least one partial connection. It's also a great connection between Lag and gateway/Raleigh. Interchange and everything there.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

You might want to look at some of the major land holders in the North and North West area of the City. I might be mistaken, but I believe the Sharma (and extended) family holds a lot of the speculative land in this area, which could be why the area councillor is pushing for this so hard.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least. It's one thing to build a road to serve a long-established population that surrounds it (CPT east). It's quite another to build it on bare, open land as an inducement to get people to move into the area. This is a development play, pure and simple... I can only scoff at the notion that this is an essential component of as-yet nonexistent Centreport Canada.

Many parts of Winnipeg are underserviced by road and transit, and all of a sudden a patch of farmer's field is the big transportation priority? If the money has to go to roads, why not use the dollars to beef up the brutally inadequate roads where people actually live?

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by cllew

And the people that live in front of it will complain when Concordia East gets completed to Plessis and finally gets twinned.

"The real estate agent said that it will never happen, we will always have a big boulevard"

Anyone who trusts a real estate agent gets what they deserve. If people can't look around and think for themselves, they are likely screwed anyways.

Same thing happened with one of my friends parents, they own a house that backs onto the CPT extension, and all they could do was bellyache for years as it was being discussed and built. They bought the home in the 1980s. Pretty obvious to everyone what the land was for, every other piece of land in the area had been developed except for a strip about the size of a 4 lane highway adjacent to an existing 4 lane highway that ended at Henderson.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I find the Cities argument on not twinning Concordia west of Molson a bit strange. They say there's not enough traffic to warrant the twinning. But maybe they don't realize this, but people avoid using Concordia because it's in horrendous condition! If the road was actually driveable, many more people would use it, reducing traffic and wear on all the other surrounding roads. It seems so simple, and it really is that simple. But the City just doesn't get it. I think they get there are zero 4 lane, east-west roads in River East, except for Chief. Why not try and complete at least one partial connection. It's also a great connection between Lag and gateway/Raleigh. Interchange and everything there.

That is the definition of induced demand... The fact that we have only 1 4 lane East-West street in that area actually makes it more livable. And the reason I think this is the Gridded street pattern.

The reason you want to make this a 4 lane (to reduce wear on all the surrounding roads) is the reason why this area is so much better than other, newer areas.

[Reignman]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Hold off on the CPT extension? Say what, it's been on hold since 1986. Land for the completed east extension had been set aside since the early 1970's until it was finally completed a few years back.

So the reasoning is that we have to build it because the land has been set aside for 28 years? If that's the case, there are intersections along Bishop that have had land set aside for interchanges for even longer than that. Some of this CPT money should be going there first.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

That is the definition of induced demand... The fact that we have only 1 4 lane East-West street in that area actually makes it more livable. And the reason I think this is the Gridded street pattern.

The reason you want to make this a 4 lane (to reduce wear on all the surrounding roads) is the reason why this area is so much better than other, newer areas.

Guess it depends on your perspective. I'd rather have traffic travelling through on a few major streets, than have people using several residential streets as arterial roads when they aren't built or meant to handle the volume of traffic they end up carrying because there is no east-west option between Regent/Nairn and CPT.

Munroe, Kimberly, McLeod are all examples of this.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Danny D Oh

Guess it depends on your perspective. I'd rather have traffic travelling through on a few major streets, than have people using several residential streets as arterial roads when they aren't built or meant to handle the volume of traffic they end up carrying because there is no east-west option between Regent/Nairn and CPT.

Munroe, Kimberly, McLeod are all examples of this.

Ya, but do you ever hear of people complaining about an accident on any of those streets? (usually not, because it's so easy to just move one street over).

In networking (computer or traffic) you never really want a bottleneck, but we've moved to a system where we intentionally build bottlenecks. It's a very stupid method if you ask me.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by Danny D Oh

Anyone who trusts a real estate agent gets what they deserve. If people can't look around and think for themselves, they are likely screwed anyways.

Unfortunately it happens all the time. The north Winnipeg hydro ring through East St. Paul had people complaining a few years ago about the towers that were going on land Hydro owned since the 1950's.

Currently there are ads running on radio (CJOB for 1 station) from people in Sage Creek saying that hydro should not be allowed to construct towers on the right of way they own on the west side next to Lag because it will ruin their view.

They want the rest of us to pay more for the cables of the service expansion to be placed underground so they keep their view. If anything the developer should have to pay as they probably sold houses without mentioning or showing on the renderings, that that strip of land was a future Hydro transmission tower corridor for the south Winnipeg service expansion when the land got developed.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Ya, but do you ever hear of people complaining about an accident on any of those streets? (usually not, because it's so easy to just move one street over).

In networking (computer or traffic) you never really want a bottleneck, but we've moved to a system where we intentionally build bottlenecks. It's a very stupid method if you ask me.

Its easy to move over but none of the adjacent streets go over the old Marconi rail spur line. Also the streets are not the same width as Kimberly, Munroe, McLoud etc. Add on street parking like on Chelsea with Miles Mac in session and you have a tight fit if your having buses, trucks etc taking a detour.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

And when it does happen, call up the realtor and demand your money back. Concordia's is going to get real busy, real soon. Part of the development plans are to upgrade the interchange at Lag, which will include twinning at least a portion of that road. Upgrade will mostly just be proper lanes, stop signs/lights, that kind of stuff.

I find the Cities argument on not twinning Concordia west of Molson a bit strange. They say there's not enough traffic to warrant the twinning. But maybe they don't realize this, but people avoid using Concordia because it's in horrendous condition! If the road was actually drivable, many more people would use it, reducing traffic and wear on all the other surrounding roads. It seems so simple, and it really is that simple. But the City just doesn't get it. I think they get there are zero 4 lane, east-west roads in River East, except for Chief. Why not try and complete at least one partial connection. It's also a great connection between Lag and gateway/Raleigh. Interchange and everything there.

Land on the west side of the Pioneer Greenway is now taken up by the sprawling EH Price plant. When I was a little kid in the 60's Metro corp should have bought up the land for a right of way for more of Concordia and banked it. If it (Concordia extension) was angled to Munroe through the old EK works yards it would have met up with Inkster on the other side of the Red river and created a nice inner beltway with the addition of a river crossing.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by cllew

Currently there are ads running on radio (CJOB for 1 station) from people in Sage Creek saying that hydro should not be allowed to construct towers on the right of way they own on the west side next to Lag because it will ruin their view.

Is this corridor you speak of on the west side of Lag in that area?

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Reignman

So the reasoning is that we have to build it because the land has been set aside for 28 years? If that's the case, there are intersections along Bishop that have had land set aside for interchanges for even longer than that. Some of this CPT money should be going there first.

South Winnipeg has at least had a nice east-west roadway (Bishop) in place for the last 34 years, you think maybe north Winnipeg also deserves a little infrastructure money to bring our roads into the 20th century (yeah I know it's 2014)?

[cllew]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Is this corridor you speak of on the west side of Lag in that area?

Here is the current map of the route on land that hydro owns in the middle of Sage Creek and more towers are going to be on the right of way.

Here is the map for the Sage Creek part of the route

http://www.hydro.mb.ca/projects/expa...route_map5.pdf

Page 3 of this news letter shows what the corridor will look like

http://www.hydro.mb.ca/projects/expa...newsletter.pdf

[bomberjet]

So Steveo. You're saying people should use residential streets, which you propose to reduce speed limits to 30 or 40, for commuting through residential neighbourhoods?!

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by cllew

Land on the west side of the Pioneer Greenway is now taken up by the sprawling EH Price plant. When I was a little kid in the 60's Metro corp should have bought up the land for a right of way for more of Concordia and banked it. If it (Concordia extension) was angled to Munroe through the old EK works yards it would have met up with Inkster on the other side of the Red river and created a nice inner beltway with the addition of a river crossing.

I've been thinking about a good route that is still technically possible. Run Concordia along Raleigh until its gets to the old wye track behind Elmwood Collegiate. Follow that right of way all the way over a new Lousie Bridge and down Higgins. Could be do able. Not really a true east-west connection. Obviously there are other more pressing issues the money could be spent on.

About the hydro lines, aren't there already huge towers on that right of way?

Anyways, a bit off topic.

[cllew]

My folks lived on the east side of the CP tracks on a street in line with Concordia and it was always in the back of their minds that Metro Corp could buy / expropriate Chelsea and Melbourne to line up Concordia to Henderson in a relatively straight line and curve over the river to Inkster.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Ya, but do you ever hear of people complaining about an accident on any of those streets? (usually not, because it's so easy to just move one street over).

In networking (computer or traffic) you never really want a bottleneck, but we've moved to a system where we intentionally build bottlenecks. It's a very stupid method if you ask me.

Yes, construction and accidents. I went to Miles Mac and Kimberly was a parking lot, literally and figuratively, during both rush hours. A residential street that is overused as an arterial connection to Henderson or Gateway/Panet, and in some ways overdeveloped for what it can handle. If you snuck down Roch or Watt to Munroe, same thing. There is still not a lot of capacity, when one of them is backed up, the whole neighbourhood is hooped, basically all of the north-south streets other than Roch and Watt have dead ends between the "3 lane" residential streets masquerading as arterial roads.

How many times a year is a road like Bishop Grandin or CPT completely blocked by an accident? Even if it was, then you use the residential streets to detour. Much rather have that than fully rely on the residential streets to move traffic which arterial roads would handle anywhere else.