Freeway-Free City - Something Winnipeg can be proud of

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

At the moment we're living in the worst of both worlds.

Except that it's as easy, and usually easier, to get around Winnipeg than in almost all the cities that have freeways and/or rapid transit.

[Only The Lonely..]

I've always wondered from an economics point of view what the real cost of being a freewayless town is in terms of lost efficiency, pollution from idling cars, etc?

[malek]

How about lost opportunities from companies who decide NOT to invest in the city because the lack of infrastructures?

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by malek

How about lost opportunities from companies who decide NOT to invest in the city because the lack of infrastructures?

Most companies in Winnipeg are in the manufacturing business, and it is easy enough to locate near the Trans-Canada Highway or Highway 75 (=Interstate 29) if you want easy access to the U.S. and Canadian road networks. An upgrade of Highway 75 to limited access status would help, but that is a provincial matter and there are no NDP MLAs from south of the city so it won't happen for awhile.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8

Well the point is we're trying to get people away from cars and sprawl to living on a more human and sustainable scale. Calgary is horrible in this respect!

Are you kidding me? in the past we have been bad, but the fact that we are going to triple the population of downtown in the next 5-6 years is pretty damn impressive. Our suburbs will continue to sprawl outwards with no geographical boundaries to inhibit them, but they are going to be far more dense than anything built in the last 20 years. Our transit is a model system that all small major cities should follow, we have about 100 000 people working in our downtown core, and about 40% of them actually drive, the rest either take transit or walk, and look for the number of drivers to shrink as our downtown population increases.

As for Winnipeg, I can't really speak to the traffic situation there, but having a major high speed road without any traffic lights can only be a good thing as more people will want to live in a house than a town home or a condo simply because it is a more comfortable lifestyle. I think focusing on actually building a LRT would make much more sense than developing a freeway.

[drew]

Originally Posted by johnnyc

I think

This is a trait missing from most public officials in Winnipeg (and obviously a great number of private citizens too), and a big reason why LRT won't be happening here for a long while.

[Calgarian]

^ that is truly sad.

[The Jabroni]

It is. -_-;

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by johnnyc

Are you kidding me? in the past we have been bad, but the fact that we are going to triple the population of downtown in the next 5-6 years is pretty damn impressive.

not really, if you consider what percentage that is of the overall growth....arguing that calgary is anything but a model for suburban sprawl is to ignore the obvious.

[Boris2k7]

Have to agree with TV on this one, though I don't think that Calgary is a "model" for suburban sprawl. Many freeways are built under the assumption that they will help move goods, but end up being clogged by commuter traffic. Instead, focus on public transit and get people off the roads, and improve the existing infrastructure to a point where truck traffic can move reasonably well.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by trueviking

arguing that calgary is anything but a model for suburban sprawl is to ignore the obvious.

In some respects it is a horrible model, but also avoids many of the pitfalls of typical suburban sprawl in a metro.

There is no leapfrog development, density is consistent and getting increasinly dense with most coming in around 12 UPA, which is extremely high by Canadian standards (for instance, the most dense greenfield subdivision in the GTA - Cornell, in Markham is less than 12 upa. There is a much better unit mix in Calgary subdivisions than in most canadian or north american subdivisions. We also don't have edge cities that suck the life and primacy of downtown as the employment node for the city.

Calgary has by far the LEAST employment sprawl of any city in North America. To me, that is at least half of what you should consider in terms of the sprawl of a city. 80% of the Metro's office space and most employment is in the centre city. This makes rapid transit viable. Density is not an end in itself, and Calgary has some good outcomes such as high transit ridership despite a spread out city.

[Calgarian]

I said our transit system is a model system, please read carefully before criticizing.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by josh white

In some respects it is a horrible model, but also avoids many of the pitfalls of typical suburban sprawl in a metro.

There is no leapfrog development, density is consistent and getting increasinly dense with most coming in around 12 UPA, which is extremely high by Canadian standards (for instance, the most dense greenfield subdivision in the GTA - Cornell, in Markham is less than 12 upa. There is a much better unit mix in Calgary subdivisions than in most canadian or north american subdivisions. We also don't have edge cities that suck the life and primacy of downtown as the employment node for the city.

Calgary has by far the LEAST employment sprawl of any city in North America. To me, that is at least half of what you should consider in terms of the sprawl of a city. 80% of the Metro's office space and most employment is in the centre city. This makes rapid transit viable. Density is not an end in itself, and Calgary has some good outcomes such as high transit ridership despite a spread out city.

But looking at those photos of houses in Calgary subdivisions absolutely jammed together, I'm not sure what the advantage of this kind of density is supposed to be. It looks like some sort of upscale version of a Brazilian shantytown. Of course, I'm going by photographs so I could be misunderstanding the reality.

[trueviking]

josh and borris, i agree completly...those are all very good points.

i just got back from the rugby world cup in france and spent some time in nice....they are right now constructing a tramway system throught the downtown...it looked so simple to build and will completely transform the city.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramway_de_Nice

it made me so sad to live in a place with such a small minded attitude towards what a city should be.

winnipeg has no freeways because freeways cost money to build, not because we are any smarter than anyone else....our luck was a result of our backwards attitude not our vision.


btw josh, i apologize for not responding to your e-mail a while back...i read it and closed it to give you a proper response later, and then completely forgot....for what its worth, i know nothing about what is going on at that site...the developer is doing his own thing right now, without our involvement....i will let you know if anything comes up....i didnt even know there was anything happening there...neither did my boss....he was disturbed to find it out actually.

[Calgarian]

So is there even any discussion of putting a mass transit system in the Peg? what is traffic like there?

[trueviking]

we have no traffic issues.....there is lots of discussion but it wont happen under this mayor

the previous mayor had 50 million dollars from the 3 levels of government to implement the first leg af a BRT system from downtown to the U of M....the drawings were done and the system ready to go....when he stepped down to run federally, the new mayor's first act in office was to cancel the initiative and re-direct the money into community rec centres...it has been almost 4 years and not a cent has actually been spent on rec centres....the feds ended up taking back their money.

as well, winnipeg's mayor argued successfully with the feds to get an exclusive exemption for winnipeg to use the new gas tax money that is supposed to be spent on public transit, for road and sewer repair.

there is yet another task force set up to look into the feasibility of a system, but he did this just to placate the opposition....they are going to put GPS systems on the busses and they spent 10 million on a system that will time stop lights...thats winnipeg's vision.

the bus system is inadequate, but it actually does serve a pretty high level of ridership...it is dropping however.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

Winnipeg not having a freeway system has nothing to do with us being some mecca to new urbanism.

Rather we don't have a freeway because we're a backwards anti development kinda town.

It would be one thing if our forefathers said no to freeways and yes to some form of rapid transit, i.e. subway, L-train, monorail...etc.

But this is not the case..Winnipeg has neither a decent freeway system nor do we have rapid transit. Ohh yaa and we still have sprawl.

At the moment we're living in the worst of both worlds.

Wow, sounds exactly like Halifax. And we have the same voices here saying that we need light rail instead of something better than our existing 2-lane cartpaths with 4-way stops. I have yet to see a load of cargo moved from the store to my house by light rail.

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Wow, sounds exactly like Halifax. And we have the same voices here saying that we need light rail instead of something better than our existing 2-lane cartpaths with 4-way stops. I have yet to see a load of cargo moved from the store to my house by light rail.

Perhaps there could put commuter cars on cargo trains??? This might apease everyone. It could be cheap ... and in Winnipeg's case would link most of the city.

I would support an LRT .. but Manitoba doesn't have the funds to build it.

Manitoba needs to build its economy to the point of being able to support an LRT system... it is coming along. I for one am hopefull for this day within the next 10 years... but it would be without economic growth.

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by flatlander

A freeway is modern transportation? Maybe in 1950. So that people in Linden Ridge can drive through my neighbourhood faster? Screw that. Put the money into transportation for the new economy, namely light rail.

I would hate to live in your bend world of modern trasportation.. but in the case of servicing the massive industry of transportation and distribution a little LRT won't cut it... and a having a BRT line will do little to nothing to enhance ridership. I think they figured it would cut up to 4-5 minutes off the trip from downtown to the University.

Sure it would make a few hundred students happy, but I would put a much higher priority on enhancing Winnipeg's roadway inhancement for the purpose of increasing efficiency of the roads, as a means to build Winnipeg's position as a transportation hub. In the end I am sure this is the direction which willbe followed as there is increased interest in cargo distribution investment in the city .. but Winnipeg needs to modernize its infrastructure. Winnipeg is turning towards attracting this type of investment, as can no longer sit idlly by and watch opportunities walk by, as it has been for far too long. Winnipeg has finally put its economic growth and investment growth at a higher priority than glossy brochure mega projects. I couldn't be happier as it will pay huge dividends for the city and province.

Out of couriousity what is the funding breakdown of Calgary's new LRT expansion?

[someone123]

Normally the freight speeds through cities are way too low to make commuting viable. Nobody is going to ride the train in Winnipeg if it averages 20 km/h.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Halifax region had just about the highest highway lane km per capita in Canada, but there aren't very good highway connections in the city. The fact is that it is usually very painful to build a full highway right into the middle of a city. It costs a fortune, requires mass expropriation of land, and cuts off neighbourhoods from each other.

Traffic is always going to be an issue in successful cities because land is at a premium. Most of the cities with no traffic problems are half dead. Downtowns where there is tons of parking and where it's easy to drive around have usually been torn apart to the point where they look like suburban office parks anyway, so why not just leave that kind of thing to the suburbs?