HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #341  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2010, 10:04 PM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is offline
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 25,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by newflyer View Post
Unlike the masses of low capacity roadways forced to carry masses of traffic in Winnipeg??? The crumbling roadways in Winnipeg are partially the result of overcapacity. I don't see the enormous infrastructure deficit in Winnipeg being fixed with inadequate roadways.
no new flyer our problems are because winnipeg has clay soil and it heavs and haws and the foundation that is laid under them is inadiquit plus having holes cut in the roads for various underground repairs ect over the years don't help either and the last 30yrs of neglect that happend due to the unicity and the logistical mess that happend after wards

also if we had gone ahead with all the freeways of the late 50's 60's plans we would have one hell of a disrielie headache right now... and as a result we would have to shut it all down to fix it and then traffic would realy get snarled as all our inferstructure woulda then been set up to feed onto it making it that much of a pain to get around were now u can go multiple ways if u want and we have the forks and the exchange distric and the esplinade riel bridge...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #342  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2010, 3:23 AM
pausgree's Avatar
pausgree pausgree is offline
Exploring the world
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 63
[QUOTE=Bdog;4643104]How does a city like Vancouver prosper, without any freeways intersecting it?
What about a city like Toronto, which has been comtemplating removing the Gardiner for years (and has already removed a significant portion of it). During rush hour it's often just as fast to take major routes with lights rather than the standstill 401 or the Don Valley Parkway... "

Metro Vancouver has 2 major freeways: Highway 1 (TCH) servicing industrial areas of Burnaby as well as bringing traffic to the North shore & ferry terminals at Horseshoe Bay and Highway 99 coming up to the south side of Vancouver from the US border through Delta & Richmond. It has a 3rd minor freeway connecting Delta & Surrey. True, the main section of Vancouver does not have freewayscriss-crossing it but it does have several free-flowing viaducts & bridges to bring traffic to and from downtown.

Metro Toronto has built a MAJOR freeway out in the burbs, Highway 407.

Sure, freeways get congested during rush hours because motorists want to drive on them!!
Ask drivers in cities with freeways if they have any desire to revert to all lights & stop signs. C'mon, get real!

I
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #343  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2010, 3:59 AM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by pausgree View Post
Metro Vancouver has 2 major freeways: Highway 1 (TCH) servicing industrial areas of Burnaby as well as bringing traffic to the North shore & ferry terminals at Horseshoe Bay and Highway 99 coming up to the south side of Vancouver from the US border through Delta & Richmond. It has a 3rd minor freeway connecting Delta & Surrey. True, the main section of Vancouver does not have freewayscriss-crossing it but it does have several free-flowing viaducts & bridges to bring traffic to and from downtown.

Metro Toronto has built a MAJOR freeway out in the burbs, Highway 407.

Sure, freeways get congested during rush hours because motorists want to drive on them!!
Ask drivers in cities with freeways if they have any desire to revert to all lights & stop signs. C'mon, get real!

I
In terms of Vancouver, the freeways you talk about aren't in Vancouver proper (which has a population of around 100 000 less than Winnipeg). Other than the few viaducts, which are comparable to the Disraeli, there are very few interchanges in Vancouver proper.My point was that Vancouver itself prospers without freeways...

As for Toronto, the 407 is a TOLL FREEWAY. You have to pay to drive on it (which I think is a great idea, and the only realistic way cities can expect to continue to expand their freeway networks).

You dismiss congested freeways at rush hour? When else do you see Winnipeg roadways congested?????? Maybe on saturday at polo park, but that's about it... What is the point on spending hundreds of millions to build unnecessary roadways when the current system is under-capacity 90% of the time?

As for your last comment, during rush hour in Toronto, it's often faster to take routes that do have lights (bayview, mount pleasant) than take the DVP... The 401 and the Gardener are mainly used by people who commute to Toronto from Mississauga or Scarborough. Within the most of the city though, freeways are unnecessary and don't take people where they need to go. Where the highest concentration of population and density are (bounded north by the 401, south by the lake, east by the DVP and west by the 427), there are no freeways crossing this area. Most people living in Toronto (not Metro TO, but Toronto itself) barely need to use freeways
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #344  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2010, 4:28 AM
grumpy old man grumpy old man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 512
Have to disagree, but having lived in Toronto until 2006 I'd have to say there is no such thing as rush "hour". Rush hour begins at 6am and runs past 9am. In the evening it's 3 to 7. Take a look at any of the highway cams. Those highways are busy all the time.

Anyone trying to cross Toronto on surface routes DURING rush hour would take forever. I've tried. That means both east-west and north-south.

The Gardner during rush hour is a slow moving gridlock. Lakeshore is a alternate but is also very busy and depending upon where exactly you're trying to go would take forever. NO ONE would take other east-west alternates to the 401 and the Gardner as a regular alternate.

As for north-south routes, except for the 427, few would take surface streets as an alternate to the Don Valley.

Outside of rush hour the freeways are the only way to cross Toronto. You could use any surface street but few Torontonians would. It already takes too long to get around that city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #345  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2010, 5:19 AM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpy old man View Post
Have to disagree, but having lived in Toronto until 2006 I'd have to say there is no such thing as rush "hour". Rush hour begins at 6am and runs past 9am. In the evening it's 3 to 7. Take a look at any of the highway cams. Those highways are busy all the time.

Anyone trying to cross Toronto on surface routes DURING rush hour would take forever. I've tried. That means both east-west and north-south.

The Gardner during rush hour is a slow moving gridlock. Lakeshore is a alternate but is also very busy and depending upon where exactly you're trying to go would take forever. NO ONE would take other east-west alternates to the 401 and the Gardner as a regular alternate.

As for north-south routes, except for the 427, few would take surface streets as an alternate to the Don Valley.

Outside of rush hour the freeways are the only way to cross Toronto. You could use any surface street but few Torontonians would. It already takes too long to get around that city.
I live in Toronto right now, and you're right about rush hour being longer than it is in other cities. Perhaps though I wasn't clear in my argument. What I was trying to say was that in the central Toronto (aka pre-1998 amalgamation), there aren't really any freeways to get you around within the central city. The 401, DVP, Gardener, and 427 form a rough "perimeter" around the city... If you live in the middle of this "perimeter" (which I do now), it doesn't make sense for you to drive all the way to one of the freeways if you are going somewhere else inside that rough perimeter (just as most often in Winnipeg, someone in the west end isn't going to drive to the perimeter to get East Kildonan, as there is too much backtracking). The freeways are great for commuters from the exurbs (if they don't mind an hour and a half commute each way), but if you live within the city, it's much more practical to get around using other methods (streetcar, subway, walking). Using the freeway system to get in and around Toronto (proper, not sauga/markham, etc) isn't very practical:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=...,0.216465&z=13
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #346  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2010, 7:42 AM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is offline
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 25,831
problem with freeways is they take all the traffic and slam it into 1 coridoor rather then spreading it out
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #347  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2010, 1:12 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog View Post
I live in Toronto right now, and you're right about rush hour being longer than it is in other cities. Perhaps though I wasn't clear in my argument. What I was trying to say was that in the central Toronto (aka pre-1998 amalgamation), there aren't really any freeways to get you around within the central city. The 401, DVP, Gardener, and 427 form a rough "perimeter" around the city... If you live in the middle of this "perimeter" (which I do now), it doesn't make sense for you to drive all the way to one of the freeways if you are going somewhere else inside that rough perimeter (just as most often in Winnipeg, someone in the west end isn't going to drive to the perimeter to get East Kildonan, as there is too much backtracking). The freeways are great for commuters from the exurbs (if they don't mind an hour and a half commute each way), but if you live within the city, it's much more practical to get around using other methods (streetcar, subway, walking). Using the freeway system to get in and around Toronto (proper, not sauga/markham, etc) isn't very practical:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=...,0.216465&z=13
That's true. Freeways in Toronto are for getting out of the city, or going through the city (401), not so much for getting from one point to another within the city. Unfortunately, many of the alternative surface routes are jammed to a standstill a lot of the time as well. This is the result of too many people and too much growth. It will backfire as business can no longer be done here and businesses and people move out into the 905 or maybe even to other parts of the country.

Toronto's experience is not really relevant to Winnipeg, in general. Surface streets are narrow and inadequate in comparison to Winnipeg. Toronto has a grid formation with almost no "angle" streets, unlike Winnipeg's more convenient radial alignment. And there are just far more people in Toronto.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #348  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2010, 1:53 PM
Jets4Life Jets4Life is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: True North
Posts: 1,913
I personally loved driving down Calgary's Deerfoot Trail. It only seemed to be busy during rush hour, and it was built to connect the city's industrial areas, and not split residential areas apart. It's a great way of going from the Southeast to the Northeast or Downtown. I would imagine the congestion on the Deerfoot would be eased somewhat when they finish the east part of the Ring Road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #349  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2010, 9:54 PM
0773|=\ 0773|=\ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,256
The important thing with freeways in urban areas is not necessarily the 3 hours that they jam up (and they wouldn't even do so THAT much in Winnipeg), but it's that if built selectively (not bisecting old neighbourhoods... probably in Winnipeg's case using ROW near rail yards, where a barrier that Winnipeggers are used to already exists), a freeway can give you 21+ hours/day of time where you can make crosstown trips MUCH quicker than surface routes. Multiply that by even 100,000 trips/day, and you're looking at a significantly more efficient transportation system.

The closest route Winnipeg has right now to that norm is Bishop Grandin, which isn't bad, but when I compare it to the same cross-town trip I make in Edmonton on Whitemud Drive, it's still a significant enough difference that I think Winnipeg should think seriously about doing this.

Make an urban loop freeway of Bishop, Route 90, Chief Peguis, and Lagimodiere, with a few freeway-standard connections to the Perimeter via Waverley, Lag, route 90, Wilkes, etc., and you're laughing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #350  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2010, 9:56 PM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is offline
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 25,831
problem with biship is the traffic going off it to the u of m
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #351  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2010, 11:02 PM
0773|=\ 0773|=\ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ajs View Post
problem with biship is the traffic going off it to the u of m
I think the new transitway will go a long way to helping that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #352  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2010, 11:05 PM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is offline
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 25,831
maybe but not till after phase 2 is done.... biship should have a trasit coridoor along it its wide enuff and could go up keniston route 90 and service polo airport hmmm and rrc interesting why didn't i think of that befor
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #353  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2010, 11:17 PM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ajs View Post
problem with biship is the traffic going off it to the u of m
With the new bridge that they finished last year, there are now 3 lanes on Bishop (westbound) from before River up to Pembina, so that should alleviate some of that congestion... As for Bishop in general, it's not really that bad during rush-hour (sometimes it can get pretty bad going eastbound around 4-5)... I took that route for 4 years when I was at U of M... As for the freeway issue in general, I like the idea of the ringroad as well. But, does it need to be completely freeflowing?

Example: Just to make Bishop completely free-flowing (from Kenaston to Lag), we would need 10 interchanges/flyovers (Waverly, River, St. Mary's, Dakota, St. Annes, Shorehill, Lakewood, Island Lakes, De la Seignurie, Lag)... Does the time saved (maybe 3 or 4 minutes max, as the lights on some of the lesser intersections mentioned above are very short anyway) justify the costs of hundreds of millions?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #354  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2010, 11:47 PM
RTD RTD is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog View Post
As for the freeway issue in general, I like the idea of the ringroad as well. But, does it need to be completely freeflowing?
Yes, that is the whole idea behind the ring road. If it isn't going to be free-flowing, then don't bother. I'm sick and tired of half-assed projects in this city.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog View Post
Example: Just to make Bishop completely free-flowing (from Kenaston to Lag), we would need 10 interchanges/flyovers (Waverly, River, St. Mary's, Dakota, St. Annes, Shorehill, Lakewood, Island Lakes, De la Seignurie, Lag)... Does the time saved (maybe 3 or 4 minutes max, as the lights on some of the lesser intersections mentioned above are very short anyway) justify the costs of hundreds of millions?
This would fall under the category of "long-term planning", taking into account population growth which would mean an increase in traffic congestion. This will need to happen sometime in the future, and the longer we wait, the more it will cost us in the long term. Winnipeg falls into these kinds of traps over and over and over and over and over again. Time to start planning for the future instead of flying by the seat of your pants.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #355  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2010, 11:52 PM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is offline
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 25,831
the congeston though people getting onto pemida
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #356  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2010, 12:01 AM
grumpy old man grumpy old man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTD View Post
This would fall under the category of "long-term planning", taking into account population growth which would mean an increase in traffic congestion. This will need to happen sometime in the future, and the longer we wait, the more it will cost us in the long term. Winnipeg falls into these kinds of traps over and over and over and over and over again. Time to start planning for the future instead of flying by the seat of your pants.
Nail on the head!

Let's build on overpass/flyover a year until done.

Let's CLOSE those asinine intersections (i.e. River Road).

Let's STOP providing access roads into the existing and new big box stores.

Do it RIGHT or don't do it at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #357  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2010, 12:02 AM
grumpy old man grumpy old man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ajs View Post
the congeston though people getting onto pemida
Huh?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #358  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2010, 12:55 AM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpy old man View Post
Nail on the head!

Let's build on overpass/flyover a year until done.

Let's CLOSE those asinine intersections (i.e. River Road).

Let's STOP providing access roads into the existing and new big box stores.

Do it RIGHT or don't do it at all.
Build one a year until done? Here is the capital budget: http://www.winnipeg.ca/FinEXT/FPR/fi...tal_budget.pdf. If you can show me where you expect these funds (likely tens of millions for an interchange) to come from, that would be awesome. Unless you're suggesting completely neglecting to maintain the infrastructure we already have, I don't see how this is feasible...But, perhaps you property taxes to increase significantly? As sweet as it would be to fly down Bishop light free, the reality is that for most of the day, it is like that anyway... The benefits just don't even come close to the costs...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #359  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2010, 1:10 AM
RTD RTD is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog View Post
Build one a year until done? Here is the capital budget: http://www.winnipeg.ca/FinEXT/FPR/fi...tal_budget.pdf. If you can show me where you expect these funds (likely tens of millions for an interchange) to come from, that would be awesome. Unless you're suggesting completely neglecting to maintain the infrastructure we already have, I don't see how this is feasible...But, perhaps you property taxes to increase significantly? As sweet as it would be to fly down Bishop light free, the reality is that for most of the day, it is like that anyway... The benefits just don't even come close to the costs...
I beg to differ. If you are not aware already, south Winnipeg is going to explode in terms of population within the next 5-10 years. What do expect is going to happen with an extra 100,000-150,000 peoeple in the area? You think that somehow the "lack of traffic" in Winnipeg is going to magically stay the same? If so, then I'm sorry to say but you are very naive. There are a lot of people in Winnipeg who share your view, and unfortunately this kind of "we can't do it" mentality has lead Winnipeg to fall behind many Canadian cities in many different regards, but among the top issues would be poor transportation/infrastructure. We now have a chance to make some ground in catching up, and I hope we follow through this time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #360  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2010, 1:36 AM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTD View Post
I beg to differ. If you are not aware already, south Winnipeg is going to explode in terms of population within the next 5-10 years. What do expect is going to happen with an extra 100,000-150,000 peoeple in the area? You think that somehow the "lack of traffic" in Winnipeg is going to magically stay the same? If so, then I'm sorry to say but you are very naive. There are a lot of people in Winnipeg who share your view, and unfortunately this kind of "we can't do it" mentality has lead Winnipeg to fall behind many Canadian cities in many different regards, but among the top issues would be poor transportation/infrastructure. We now have a chance to make some ground in catching up, and I hope we follow through this time.
First of all, I don't know where you got those numbers, but South Winnipeg is definately not going to have another 100000 to 150000 people in the next 5 to 10 years...Waverly West is projected to eventually have about 12000 homes or so, but not within 5 to 10 years.

Secondly, I don't have a "we can't do it" mentality at all. Quite the opposite. That being said, there are much better ways to spend the hundreds of millions that would be required to complete a free-flowing ring-road. Freeways are the solution of the past, and many other cities have begun to realize this fact. I think that the exhorbitant sum which you suggest should go to building overpasses and interchanges would be much better spent laying the foundations for a city-wide rapid transit network...

Building a ring road is nice, but definitely does not solve the traffic problem for south Winnipeg, as many of the new population will be commuting downtown, not heading eastward down bishop to island lakes or southdale... On the other hand, an extended RT corridor from downtown to U of M (and Waverly West) would take cars off the road, and do much more to alleviate the congested south winnipeg commute....
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 1:05 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.