Freeway-Free City - Something Winnipeg can be proud of

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by johnnyc

Having a freeway in the city makes getting across Calgary much easier. You can take your roads with all of your traffic lights, even if they are timed, you will still end up waiting.

Lastly, saying that a freeway causes more pollution is a half truth, true it may increase the distance you travel and thus the amount of gas you burn, but it will greatly reduce the amount of time that you spend in traffic idling (which also burns gas don't you know), and I would say that is better.

umm...you're kidding right?....calgary has some of the worst traffic congestion i have ever seen, caused by the freeways and the sprawl that they have fostered...that is exactly the point...freeways cause longer commutes and do not alleviate traffic.....my buddy lives in the south and works near the airport and it takes him 2 hours to get home on the freeway...you could drive across winnipeg 6 times in 2 hours during rush hour without a freeway in sight.

[Wooster]

No question the grid system works much better than a freeway/arterial system. Too much traffic has to funnel into one place rather than being spread evenly across the grid. The best traffic situation in Calgary is in the north central area, which is a grid lacking any freeways.

Having said that, Calgary still functions well as a spread out city because its employment is so concentrated (no employment sprawl), parking is so expensive and we've managed to create a relatively good rapid transit system (that is about to get a couple billion dollars better).

Remember, density is not an end in and of itself.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by trueviking

my buddy lives in the south and works near the airport and it takes him 2 hours to get home on the freeway.

He'd have to be very poor at picking routes, because I can't think of a single way it could possibly take more than an hour, even in the worst traffic to reach one side of town to the other in Calgary (unless you're trying to pass the Bow constructions site during rush hour). Sounds like a gross exaggeration.

[skrish]

Originally Posted by trueviking

my buddy lives in the south and works near the airport and it takes him 2 hours to get home on the freeway.

I'm sure it does

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by johnnyc

Blaming Calgary's sprawl on freeways is just ignorant, it is a lifestyle choice that Calgarians made. Living in bigger houses with bigger yards and having 2 of the largest inner city parks in North America dramatically increases the size of the city. Calgary also has very large industrial areas along the eastern edge of the city. Having a freeway in the city makes getting across Calgary much easier. You can take your roads with all of your traffic lights, even if they are timed, you will still end up waiting.

Wrong. You'll note that such "lifestyle choices" didn't exist for the majority before the 1950's. Government policy and freeway building has everything to do with sprawl. The industrial areas on the eastern edge of the city used to be more compact and oriented around a streetcar line that was demolished as a result of the sprawl industry. Choice, in this case, is an illusion that's created by special interests.

As for BRT lines being better than the LRT, are you kidding me? you still have to deal with traffic and you will still be screwed if there is an accident. Calgary has BRT too, it services the ares of the city that do not yet have the C-train. It's a good system, but it can not compete with the LRT.

Calgary does not have a BRT, we have an express bus. BRT and LRT work in different situations, and Ottawa's system carries as many people as Calgary's (Curitaba's bus-based system carries around 2/3 of the commuting population, the most successful BRT system in the world).

Like I said before, sprawl is driven by consumers wanting to buy a house with a good size yard instead of a townhouse or an apartment, and with a high average income, that's a choice that more people here can afford to make.

As I said before, choices (or rather "free choices") are an illusion. If I provided you with the option to live in a highrise condo or to live in a townhouse, and most people chose townhouses, would it then be valid to say that most people prefer to live in townhouses?

Talking about Calgary being the only city still building freeways is wrong, you people speak as if we are demolishing neighborhoods and building elevated freeways, when all we are really doing is building more overpasses and increasing traffic flow on existing roads. Deerfoot is our only true freeway, and will stay that way until Glenmore / Sarcee can manage to get rid of all the traffic lights, and move from being a causeway to a freeway. The only thing we are building from scratch (and that is only sections) is the ring road, and you would have to be a complete idiot to tell me that is a bad thing. Anyone who has ever tried to cross through the city on 16th Ave (especially driving an 18 wheeler) knows how frustrating a task that is, the ring road is meant to alleviate that.

We ARE demolishing neighbourhoods. That's why 16th Ave is taking so long, they have to expropriate all the land. The Ring Road is an awful thing, as it will accelerate sprawl. They should have just rerouted the Transcanada down to Glenmore and out the other side of the city, thereby making use of existing infrastructure.

Lastly, saying that a freeway causes more pollution is a half truth, true it may increase the distance you travel and thus the amount of gas you burn, but it will greatly reduce the amount of time that you spend in traffic idling (which also burns gas don't you know), and I would say that is better.

end rant.

As engine efficiency gets better, the amount of fuel burned in traffic will go down. The sprawl won't go away, however. Besides, it isn't an exaggeration to say that one could be stuck in traffic for hours, freeway or not. All it takes are a couple of accidents and every road is clogged.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by trueviking

umm...you're kidding right?....calgary has some of the worst traffic congestion i have ever seen, caused by the freeways and the sprawl that they have fostered...that is exactly the point...freeways cause longer commutes and do not alleviate traffic.....my buddy lives in the south and works near the airport and it takes him 2 hours to get home on the freeway...you could drive across winnipeg 6 times in 2 hours during rush hour without a freeway in sight.

TOTAL bullshit. 6 times? LOL!

I have a friend that works at the airport and lives in the SE and his afternoon commute is 45-50 min (40 km one way) and its closer to 35 minutes in the morning.

I work downtown and live in the SE and my afternoon commute is under 30 min (24 km one way) and under 20 minutes in the morning.

Compare that to when I was living in Winnipeg and commuted from the Maples to Scurfield and it took me 45-60 minutes to drive half the distance down route 90. Or how about how it takes close to 45 minutes in NON rush hour traffic to get from the U of M to North Kildonan?

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Wrong. You'll note that such "lifestyle choices" didn't exist for the majority before the 1950's. Government policy and freeway building has everything to do with sprawl. The industrial areas on the eastern edge of the city used to be more compact and oriented around a streetcar line that was demolished as a result of the sprawl industry. Choice, in this case, is an illusion that's created by special interests.

Before the 1950's Calgary had a tiny population, I'm sticking to my guns on this one. I think the draw of the suburban lifestyle is our biggest reason for sprawl, having the Deerfoot feeding all of these neighborhoods definitely doesn't help, but there are other options like Barlow, 52nd, Ogden, Blackfoot... when I lived in Douglasdale (deep SE for those of you who don't know) and commuted to downtown every morning, I would leave at 7:45, and be downtown by 8:15 at the very latest (unless there are accidents of course).

our industrial park is getting more spread out because big retail companies are putting their distribution centres there (Wal Mart, Canadian Tire, Sears, Western Grocers), and there are more, bigger, manufacturing facilities like SMED (who actually got bought out and has a different name now). The proximity of the foothills industrial to the deerfoot makes perfect sense, in the trucking business (which is huge in Calgary) time is money, so you will want your warehouse somewhere near both the edge of the city, and the customers you serve.

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Calgary does not have a BRT, we have an express bus. BRT and LRT work in different situations, and Ottawa's system carries as many people as Calgary's (Curitaba's bus-based system carries around 2/3 of the commuting population, the most successful BRT system in the world).

My mistake, I thought our express buss service was a BRT system.

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

As I said before, choices (or rather "free choices") are an illusion. If I provided you with the option to live in a highrise condo or to live in a townhouse, and most people chose townhouses, would it then be valid to say that most people prefer to live in townhouses?

That IS a lifestyle choice, some people want a yard, and others don't.

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

We ARE demolishing neighbourhoods. That's why 16th Ave is taking so long, they have to expropriate all the land. The Ring Road is an awful thing, as it will accelerate sprawl. They should have just rerouted the Transcanada down to Glenmore and out the other side of the city, thereby making use of existing infrastructure.

true, but we are not turning 16th into a freeway, we are making it a more vibrant urban street, while eliminating the majority of the trucking traffic on it. That road was congested 24-7, and it would have only gotten worse. based on this, I would say that the north leg or the ring road is perfectly justifiable. The south leg will (as you said) will contribute to more sprawl. Rerouting the transCanada to Glenmore would completely cripple it, and all the work they have been doing there for the last 5 years would be a complete waste, as traffic would be bumper to bumper from one end of the city to the other. The only thing that can stop sprawl in Calgary is if it ceases to be profitable for developers to build massive new suburbs (unlikely with our over heated marked, and high demand for large suburban homes), or if the city or province step in and tell them they can't go any further.

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

As engine efficiency gets better, the amount of fuel burned in traffic will go down. The sprawl won't go away, however. Besides, it isn't an exaggeration to say that one could be stuck in traffic for hours, freeway or not. All it takes are a couple of accidents and every road is clogged.

Very true, if we all drove hybrid cars, there would be far less pollution as we would be using electricity during idle.
I think if you don't want to sit in traffic all day, you should live closer to your work. Working in the core, and living straight down McLeod tr. in Chapparell (about 25km from downtown) is just irresponsible.

[drew]

Originally Posted by h0twired

T

Compare that to when I was living in Winnipeg and commuted from the Maples to Scurfield and it took me 45-60 minutes to drive half the distance down route 90. Or how about how it takes close to 45 minutes in NON rush hour traffic to get from the U of M to North Kildonan?

Well the first obvious response to this is why would you live in Maples or North Kildonan?!

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by drew

Well the first obvious response to this is why would you live in Maples or North Kildonan?!

Clearly because I am a bloated white SUV driving suburbanite.

In truth, I was still living in my parents house at the time.

The real question is why did the company I work for occupy a one storey office building in a suburban industrial park with a large parking lot when they could have easily been located downtown?

Sadly there are too many companies like this in Winnipeg that force people to drive to work as the bus routes are horrendous for anyone living on the other side of town (or even in the core for that matter).

[feepa]

Originally Posted by Greco Roman

And two Winnipeg's would both be better than one feepa; always . Reading your responses towards Winnipeg, I don't think that Malek (according to you) or Waterlooson are the only troublemakers (ie trolls) on this forum.

Your idea of a troll is anyone who isn't a booster of Winnipeg. Guess that makes me a troll then, and yes, it does take 2 Winnipegs to be greater than 1 feepa.

[feepa]

Originally Posted by malek

mmmyeah, as recent as 1975 for Montréal? (highway 13). Again talking out of your ass

Thankfully we'll get a new bridge and extension for the 25 by 2011.

You've had no freeway construction, or extensions, or expansions in the last 25 years in the Greater Montreal Region?

[feepa]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

But both cities would still be way more interesting than 1 Edmonton.

IYO... sure.

[malek]

Originally Posted by feepa

You've had no freeway construction, or extensions, or expansions in the last 25 years in the Greater Montreal Region?

nope nothing, maybe a few new interchanges to replace old ones, but thats it.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by h0twired

TOTAL bullshit. 6 times? LOL!

I have a friend that works at the airport and lives in the SE and his afternoon commute is 45-50 min (40 km one way) and its closer to 35 minutes in the morning.

I work downtown and live in the SE and my afternoon commute is under 30 min (24 km one way) and under 20 minutes in the morning.

Compare that to when I was living in Winnipeg and commuted from the Maples to Scurfield and it took me 45-60 minutes to drive half the distance down route 90. Or how about how it takes close to 45 minutes in NON rush hour traffic to get from the U of M to North Kildonan?

youre crazy...i went from NK to u of m every day for 7 years and it was half an hour.....my friend takes 2 hours minimum to get to work in calgary...he leaves at 5AM to avoid rush hour, but on the way home its 2 hours....are you actually pretending that calgary's traffic isnt horrific?....get real....for a city that size it has more traffic than anywhere....you are ridiculous to suggest anything else.

it can take 2 hours just to get out of downtown in calgary....i have several times been caught in freeway traffic in calgary that took hours to get through....i've sat at lights for 6 cycles numerous times...you can cross winnipeg in 1/2 an hour any time of day...you never...ever sit at a light for more than a single cycle....i go through portage and main every morning at 8:30....i'm usually the third or fourth car at the light....i go the full length of downtown...5 minutes in the morning....10 in the evening.

[feepa]

TV, your friend is obviously taking weird routes. It doesn't take 2 hours to get from anywhere to anywhere in Calgary, at any point of day. You can get to most places in 40mins - 1 hour at the most. even from deep NW to the very far SE... maybe you friend needs a map?

[feepa]

Just to re-cap this thread: Winnipeg has no freeways, no rapid transit, but is still the best city to get around in, or so the W-Boosters would have you believe.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by trueviking

youre crazy...i went from NK to u of m every day for 7 years and it was half an hour.....my friend takes 2 hours minimum to get to work in calgary...he leaves at 5AM to avoid rush hour, but on the way home its 2 hours....are you actually pretending that calgary's traffic isnt horrific?....get real....for a city that size it has more traffic than anywhere....you are ridiculous to suggest anything else.

it can take 2 hours just to get out of downtown in calgary....i have several times been caught in freeway traffic in calgary that took hours to get through....i've sat at lights for 6 cycles numerous times...you can cross winnipeg in 1/2 an hour any time of day...you never...ever sit at a light for more than a single cycle....i go through portage and main every morning at 8:30....i'm usually the third or fourth car at the light....i go the full length of downtown...5 minutes in the morning....10 in the evening.

2 hours to get out of downtown? never! not even if there is an accident. let's at least try to be realistic. Calgary has a lot of traffic, but outside of rush hour, everything moves really well. the longest it should take you to get across the city is an hour and that's in the worst traffic.

[Tower Crane]

I think people are getting way off track here. There is a huge difference between roadways built to move traffic and freeways that have killed off portions of cities. Some forumers are trying to portray them as the same thing.

Just because Winnipeg has done nothing doesn't put them ahead of the game, I guess the poor planning by the city that has resulted in all those traffic lights have finally hipnotized the few forumers that have been supporting the notion that there is no need for free flow expressways.
Edmonton Example: I can drive from Sherwood Park on the east side of Edmonton to west Edmonton with only 1 stop. contrary to the city killer suggestions The Whitemud Drive which cuts east to west has not killed any neighbourhoods along the way, if you glance out on either side you see new neighbourhoods, older established neighbourhoods, shopping areas, a major river valley park system, etc. all thriving. Again, it's not Houston type freeways of 10 lanes wide just a nice free flow road system. It's kind of nice to drive that distance without stopping.
Winnipeg Example: A similiar example would be to drive from Transcona to the Unicity area. How many dozens of lights and start and stops do you have to make.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by CB-MAN

I think people are getting way off track here. There is a huge difference between roadways built to move traffic and freeways that have killed off portions of cities. Some forumers are trying to portray them as the same thing.

Just because Winnipeg has done nothing doesn't put them ahead of the game, I guess the poor planning by the city that has resulted in all those traffic lights have finally hipnotized the few forumers that have been supporting the notion that there is no need for free flow expressways.
Edmonton Example: I can drive from Sherwood Park on the east side of Edmonton to west Edmonton with only 1 stop. contrary to the city killer suggestions The Whitemud Drive which cuts east to west has not killed any neighbourhoods along the way, if you glance out on either side you see new neighbourhoods, older established neighbourhoods, shopping areas, a major river valley park system, etc. all thriving. Again, it's not Houston type freeways of 10 lanes wide just a nice free flow road system. It's kind of nice to drive that distance without stopping.
Winnipeg Example: A similiar example would be to drive from Transcona to the Unicity area. How many dozens of lights and start and stops do you have to make.

That was exactly the poing of my first post.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by feepa

Just to re-cap this thread: Winnipeg has no freeways, no rapid transit, but is still the best city to get around in, or so the W-Boosters would have you believe.

yup....compared to most cities, winnipeg has practically no traffic issues...booster or not, thats the truth...its why there is a general perception that we dont need rapid transit...if we had traffic, there would be more support for it.

it doesnt really matter, but my experience (and my friend's) of calgary traffic is vastly different than what is being claimed here....i agree that outside of rush hour is fine, but i have had many, many experiences where i crawled across the city during rush hour....practically every time i am there actually.