Western Expresso - Page 103

1ajs · #**2041** Posted **Mar 7, 2014, 2:36 AM**

on a random note anyone herd of the midnight choir? got 2 friends in it i know of it kind cool idea if none of u guys herd of it

Video Link

Cyro · #**2042** Posted **Mar 7, 2014, 7:05 PM**

Tired of Manitoba's and Winnipeg's infrustructure problems?
Worried about the CPT and population threads?
Tired of the NDP governement and the Never ending Winter and Snowfall?
Thinking about Shindico and Sammie's shady deals .....

Well this is for you...

Enjoy and.......

• Video Link

1ajs · #**2043** Posted **Mar 7, 2014, 11:55 PM**

aww monty python

micheal · #**2044** Posted **Mar 10, 2014, 3:39 PM**

Enbridge to upgrade pipeline through Saskatchewan
majority of the $5 billion project runs through Saskatchewan

by:Courtney mintenko
March 10th 2014
newstalk 980

http://cjme.com/story/enbridge-upgra...tchewan/278293

Riverman · #**2045** Posted **Mar 14, 2014, 5:06 PM**

Heard the following on Adler this morning regarding opening P&M to foot traffic.

"There is no difference in traffic on Portage and Main compared to say, Portage and Fort."

Stefano Grande: "Winnipeg has a lot of pedestrian traffic downtown due to the thriving retail sector there."

These are either NDP-calibre lies or neither of these people have been downtown.

esquire · #**2046** Posted **Mar 14, 2014, 5:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Heard the following on Adler this morning regarding opening P&M to foot traffic.

"There is no difference in traffic on Portage and Main compared to say, Portage and Fort."

Stefano Grande: "Winnipeg has a lot of pedestrian traffic downtown due to the thriving retail sector there."

These are either NDP-calibre lies or neither of these people have been downtown.

I won't defend Grande's alleged statement (although I have my doubts as to the accuracy of that quote), but the other one is bang-on.

If you accept the logic that opening P&M to foot traffic would cause traffic armageddon, then in theory there should be no traffic moving through downtown Winnipeg given that there intersections with very similar vehicle counts that allow ped crossings, like Broadway and Main or Portage and Memorial. So that idea is obviously and demonstrably wrong.

Riverman · #**2047** Posted **Mar 14, 2014, 5:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

I won't defend Grande's alleged statement (although I have my doubts as to the accuracy of that quote), but the other one is bang-on.

First, Grande's statement is word for word and I don't care if you don't believe it. I heard it, in my truck this morning on the way to Home Depot to buy a hot water heater.

No, that statement is far from bang on. You are comparing one of Winnipeg's major commuter routes with a hardly-used one-way street.

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

If you accept the logic that opening P&M to foot traffic would cause traffic armageddon, then in theory there should be no traffic moving through downtown Winnipeg given that there intersections with very similar vehicle counts that allow ped crossings, like Broadway and Main or Portage and Memorial. So that idea is obviously and demonstrably wrong.

That's quite a stretch, seeing that you have no idea what my opinion is on the subject.

drew · #**2048** Posted **Mar 14, 2014, 5:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

That's quite a stretch, seeing that you have no idea what my opinion is on the subject.

How about you enlighten us then?

I will start: I would support opening up Portage and Main to pedestrian traffic.

Riverman · #**2049** Posted **Mar 14, 2014, 6:09 PM**

I would certainly support a trial opening to see how well it works and to see how people like it.

1ajs · #**2050** Posted **Mar 14, 2014, 6:16 PM**

would be nice when out and about on foot to zip across though in dead of winter i am guna go underground to warm up as its blutty cold in that wind

steveosnyder · #**2051** Posted **Mar 14, 2014, 6:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

How about you enlighten us then?

I will start: I would support opening up Portage and Main to pedestrian traffic.

I support opening Portage and Main to pedestrian traffic. But I still find a problem with Esquire's analysis. And it's the same problem I have with most analysis when we talk about traffic, we don't consider the volume of pedestrian traffic.

Sure the other 2 intersections have similar traffic volumes coming in and out, but we don't have accurate pedestrian counts at either of these intersections because no one ever bothers to measure. We also are only estimating the pedestrian count at P&M. We don't actually know how many pedestrians would cross.

Taking this into account, I don't know if it will cause gridlock or not, but I still support it.

esquire · #**2052** Posted **Mar 14, 2014, 6:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

I support opening Portage and Main to pedestrian traffic. But I still find a problem with Esquire's analysis. And it's the same problem I have with most analysis when we talk about traffic, we don't consider the volume of pedestrian traffic.

Sure the other 2 intersections have similar traffic volumes coming in and out, but we don't have accurate pedestrian counts at either of these intersections because no one ever bothers to measure. We also are only estimating the pedestrian count at P&M. We don't actually know how many pedestrians would cross.

Taking this into account, I don't know if it will cause gridlock or not, but I still support it.

There are a number of ped xings near P&M, and looking at them you can get a pretty clear idea of what the ped traffic levels would be like if the corner is reopened, e.g. Portage & Fort, Main and William Stephenson, Main and McDermot, Main and Graham.

It's not as though the pedestrian traffic at P&M will be higher by orders of magnitude. Besides, in the unlikely event that things spin out of control the corner could always be closed back up to pedestrian traffic.

steveosnyder · #**2053** Posted **Mar 14, 2014, 6:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

There are a number of ped xings near P&M, and looking at them you can get a pretty clear idea of what the ped traffic levels would be like if the corner is reopened, e.g. Portage & Fort, Main and William Stephenson, Main and McDermot, Main and Graham.

It's not as though the pedestrian traffic at P&M will be higher by orders of magnitude. Besides, in the unlikely event that things spin out of control the corner could always be closed back up to pedestrian traffic.

Can you show me what the numbers are? Have they ever done a "traffic" study for pedestrians at these locations? I would love to see those numbers.

I kinda follow the Jan Gehl model -- incrimental "improvements" (I use quotes because it might not be an improvement, in which case you can move back), then reassessment. Open the least busy crossing first (East side), if that works, open the next busy one, etc. etc. and after each, you reassess the conditions.

Riverman · #**2054** Posted **Mar 14, 2014, 7:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

I kinda follow the Jan Gehl model -- incremental "improvements" (I use quotes because it might not be an improvement, in which case you can move back), then reassessment. Open the least busy crossing first (East side), if that works, open the next busy one, etc. etc. and after each, you reassess the conditions.

Yes! An engineer I used to work with at GEAE used to call it anal-izing.

In any dynamic system (and this certainly is a system) one can not accurately predict what will happen with different levels of implementation. You can estimate and model but you also have to test and tune the system at each level. It certainly could work but you have to remember this "system" also involves all other intersections in four directions for some distance.

Of course, any true scientific process is screwed when politics are thrown into the mix.

esquire · #**2055** Posted **Mar 14, 2014, 7:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Yes! An engineer I used to work with at GEAE used to call it anal-izing.

In any dynamic system (and this certainly is a system) one can not accurately predict what will happen with different levels of implementation. You can estimate and model but you also have to test and tune the system at each level. It certainly could work but you have to remember this "system" also involves all other intersections in four directions for some distance.

Of course, any true scientific process is screwed when politics are thrown into the mix.

Good Lord, it's an intersection, not a space mission. It was closed so that the property owners could force pedestrians into their underground malls. I don't know that we need the achingly slow BRT-style increments for this minor project.

Riverman · #**2056** Posted **Mar 14, 2014, 7:22 PM**

Yes but changes to it affect people, why not do it properly? It is not just an intersection, it is the intersection. It would make a terrific masters or PhD thesis.

Why would anybody be against doing this properly?

Cyro · #**2057** Posted **Mar 14, 2014, 7:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Good Lord, it's an intersection, not a space mission. It was closed so that the property owners could force pedestrians into their underground malls. I don't know that we need the achingly slow BRT-style increments for this minor project.

lol, you have a way with words, love it, but in all seriousness.

We're discussing traffic/pedestrian issues to no end. Very important indeed and must be taken into consideration as well.

The major problem is in BOLD, as Esquire posted.

NOTHING I repeat NOTHING will change if the business owners ,who have a major financial interest/stake in this intersection, above ground but most importantly below, cannot be convinced it is in their best interest financially, to allow pedestrians to cross above ground, rather than by pass all the investment they have added below ground.

All business parties who entered into this original contract must agree it is in "Their", best interest to reduce the foot traffic flowing below ground and let it flow away from their business.

I'd open the intersection this summer if I could, but it's the legality of the issue that is the major hurdle here.

Riverman · #**2058** Posted **Mar 14, 2014, 7:42 PM**

As it is now, Main is very congested during rush hour. If it is made worse, other streets will take more of the load - like Waterfront.

When Waterfront opened I could putt-putt down the street and enjoy the landscape (it really is nice in the summer) but now if you try to do that you are met with horn honking and road rage. If Main Street is restricted more than it is now because of a poor effort at P&M Waterfront be become somewhat less desirable.

Biff · #**2059** Posted **Mar 14, 2014, 7:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Good Lord, it's an intersection, not a space mission.

......holy shit Esquire...........that is some funny stuff right there.

esquire · #**2060** Posted **Mar 14, 2014, 7:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyro

All business parties who entered into this original contract must agree it is in "Their", best interest to reduce the foot traffic flowing below ground and let it flow away from their business.

I'd open the intersection this summer if I could, but it's the legality of the issue that is the major hurdle here.

Yeah, there are several hurdles and this one is the biggest. It's possible that the owners might not be persuaded to back down from the contract. But it's certainly worth exploring... It's not as though the Portage and Main concourses are all of a sudden going to become devoid of people if you can cross at street level...