Freeway-Free City - Something Winnipeg can be proud of

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by Kinguni

There shouldn't be lights at River, St. Mary's, Dakota or St. Anne's.

Agreed ... and I expect to see Bishop Grandin to be significantly upgraded over the next decade.

[Kinguni]

I wish I shared your optimism. At that, too many people seem focused on the routes (Perimeter Hwy.) that help people avoid Winnipeg, rather than those that service the City.

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Yeah. What I'm really surprised about is how ultra conservative Albertans advocated freeways so much, which are a huge government expenditure. You'd think that as free-market advocates, they would advocate for tolls, congestion pricing, and other mechanisms/user fees so that drivers pay the true costs of their activity. Interesting...

I don't really see this as a political issue. Ever been to Massachuetts, or California?? (massive freeways/leftie politics) Closer to home, every city across Canada with a population over 200,000 people has designated freeway/expressways of some form. Winnipeg fell behind due to its lack of financial ability post 1950 and poor metro planning pre-unicity. Winnipeg is slowly climbing out of this long term economic funk and is showing signs of economic rebirth.

As the city climbs to the million people mark we will see many needed modern upgrades of the exsisting roadways as well as additions of new expressways which will enhance the traffic flow of this growing metropolis.

[raggedy13]

Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8

I was looking at another forum about large U.S. cities without freeways and it might be that Winnipeg may be the only large city of over 500,000 people. Whether it was intentional or good fortune, I think it is something Winnipeg should be proud of: that we haven't made the mistake that has blighted so many cities on this continent.

Now, hopefully we can get around to improving public transit and urban life to kill any ideas of building freeways in the future

Not wanting to take this thread off track but I just thought I'd respond to this first post by providing Vancouver as a potential example of a large NA city 'without' freeways. In the City of Vancouver (outlined in black) with a population just over 600,000 there is only one small stretch of the Trans-Canada Hwy dipping through in the northeast corner. There are highways in the 'burbs though of course.

There were plenty of plans drawn up in the '60s for an elaborate freeway system to funnel people downtown but due to public opposition (people didn't want to see historic neighbourhoods torn down to make room) the plans were never realized. It's an event that many cite as the reason why Vancouver's core is so livable and successful today.

Despite the lack of freeways around the core, traffic is no worse for it. A study a year or two back showed that Vancouver was the only city in Canada to see commute times decline over the last few decades despite having built no new freeways in that time (in the City proper or the suburbs). By comparison, Seattle has a heavily freeway-ed core yet they have notoriously bad traffic.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by newflyer

As the city climbs to the million people mark we will see many needed modern upgrades of the exsisting roadways as well as additions of new expressways which will enhance the traffic flow of this growing metropolis.

Sounds like the narration from some old Eisenhower-era "Cities of Tomorrow" filmstrip that we'd get shown in Junior High back in the 70s when the teacher was too hung over to do anything else.

[RTD]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Sounds like the narration from some old Eisenhower-era "Cities of Tomorrow" filmstrip that we'd get shown in Junior High back in the 70s when the teacher was too hung over to do anything else.

But at the same time, this sounds like someone who is stuck in the past, and is dead set against population growth in Winnipeg, and any type of associated growing infrastructure needs that a growing city requires (to a certain extent) desperate to keep Winnipeg as a one-horse kinda town.

[jmt18325]

I don't know if you've been paying attention, but Winnipeg isn't having a problem in the population growth area. Freeways don't necessarily bring people, and a lack of them don't necessarily keep people away.

[grumpy old man]

Trouble is Winnipeg did have problems in the population growth area for a couple decades.

What happens to Winnipeg traffic if the city adds another 50k in the next five years. And 100k in the following ten years. How will traffic flow with a 10% or 20% growth in population but zero growth in serious traffic management? Especially if we get sprawl in check...

The time to think about that was ten or twenty years ago. Best start acquiring land now for an inner ring road and start planning the proper infrastructure needs now.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by RTD

But at the same time, this sounds like someone who is stuck in the past, and is dead set against population growth in Winnipeg, and any type of associated growing infrastructure needs that a growing city requires (to a certain extent) desperate to keep Winnipeg as a one-horse kinda town.

I am just more interested in how Winnipeg could make itself better without substantial population growth and expressway development, which are (a) unlikely to occur and (b) unlikely to solve any of Winnipeg's real problems even if they do occur.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by grumpy old man

Trouble is Winnipeg did have problems in the population growth area for a couple decades.

What happens to Winnipeg traffic if the city adds another 50k in the next five years. And 100k in the following ten years. How will traffic flow with a 10% or 20% growth in population but zero growth in serious traffic management? Especially if we get sprawl in check...

The time to think about that was ten or twenty years ago. Best start acquiring land now for an inner ring road and start planning the proper infrastructure needs now.

Better arterial roads and much-improved bus transit are good plans. Expensive expressways and needless interchanges, just to keep up with the Calgary Joneses, are probably bad plans, IMHO.

[RTD]

Grumpy pretty much took the words rights out of my mouth. And yes, Winnipeg and Manitoba are growing, at our fastest pace in several decades, unless for some strange reason we don't count this?

It's called LONG-TERM planning, something Winnipeg has seriously lacked for over 50 years. We have an opportunity to manage our growth in a fiscally responsible manner, especially for growing infrastructure needs. Now I have already stated where I think free-flowing traffic routes are needed a few posts ago, so I won't rehash that. But we are definitely growing, whether people want to accept this or not.

[RTD]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Better arterial roads and much-improved bus transit are good plans. Expensive expressways and needless interchanges, just to keep up with the Calgary Joneses, are probably bad plans, IMHO.

You don't take into account long-term growth, and sound like many of our civic councillors, especially Good ol' "NIMBY" Lil, which have really hurt our growth potential. This is why we need some changes in our civic leadership.

[RTD]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I am just more interested in how Winnipeg could make itself better without substantial population growth and expressway development, which are (a) unlikely to occur and (b) unlikely to solve any of Winnipeg's real problems even if they do occur.

You sound like my grandfather, who is against any kind of growth and change. He too is stuck in the 1940s, and I have the same argument with him over and over again. I tell him that if you don't like living in a CITY, then he should move to a SMALL TOWN instead of constantly complaining about growth and change.

Good thing you have chosen to live in Toronto, Canada's urban sprawling Capital. It's kind of hard to take you seriously about you "concerns" about growth when you choose to live in sprawling megatropolis. To me, that is hypocritical.

[vid]

His point is probably that the perimeter is too far from the city to really aid in the city's development, so upgrading it entirely to a full freeway is more a "look what we can do" project than a "look what we had to do and did" project. Improving the roads and bridges in the city proper and developing adequate mass transit to ease the stress on roads should be a higher priority.

Rural freeways do not a big city make.

[jmt18325]

Winnipeg will expand it's infrastructure as needed. Strategic interchanges will be built and more lanes will be added, but needlessly building freeways won't do any good.

Winnipeg didn't lack growth for two decades because of a lack of freeways.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by RTD

You sound like my grandfather, who is against any kind of growth and change. He too is stuck in the 1940s, and I have the same argument with him over and over again. I tell him that if you don't like living in a CITY, then he should move to a SMALL TOWN instead of constantly complaining about growth and change.

Your grandfather sounds like an infinitely wise man.

You can't define people's objections away. Maybe that's your idea of a city, but Winnipeg has been a city for a long time without having huge amounts of change and growth. It's not some sort of logical inconsistency to want that to continue, which is essentially what you're arguing. Perhaps Winnipeg is one of those cities with many of the attributes of a small town. It's not immediately required to change everything because someone comes running in with a definition of "city" they've made up and says "no, no...we've been doing it all wrong!" Slow-growth, small-townish cities are cities too.

Good thing you have chosen to live in Toronto, Canada's urban sprawling Capital. It's kind of hard to take you seriously about you "concerns" about growth when you choose to live in sprawling megatropolis. To me, that is hypocritical.

Wouldn't my experience in Toronto possibly give me some insight about the supposed desirability of rapid population growth and freeway development?

[RTD]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Your grandfather sounds like an infinitely wise man.

You can't define people's objections away. Maybe that's your idea of a city, but Winnipeg has been a city for a long time without having huge amounts of change and growth. It's not some sort of logical inconsistency to want that to continue, which is essentially what you're arguing. Perhaps Winnipeg is one of those cities with many of the attributes of a small town. It's not immediately required to change everything because someone comes running in with a definition of "city" they've made up and says "no, no...we've been doing it all wrong!" Slow-growth, small-townish cities are cities too.

Well, you definition of a city has been plaguing our growth for way too long. I don't consider Winnipeg to be one of your "small-town cities" anymore. We are growing population wise. All we need is the proper civic leadership to help us out even more. I can see you are indeed anti-change with your posts, so I guess we will never agree on most issues. I am very optimistic about the future of my city. If I wasn't, I would have left a long time ago, like many have.

Originally Posted by Andy6

Wouldn't my experience in Toronto possibly give me some insight about the supposed desirability of rapid population growth and freeway development?

What I'm saying is that you complain about "sprawl" in Winnipeg, and how you are against it in general, but then you continue to choose to live in a city like Toronto with the worst sprawl issues in the country. That makes you a hypocrite in my eyes, and that is why I don't take your opinion seriously. If you don't like sprawl so much, I suggest you move to a place like Parry Sound. My bet is that you'd be much more content with a "small-town" lifestyle there.

[1ajs]

bad sprawl is when u expand and u let the inner areas decay and loose population to the sprawl

[harls]

Originally Posted by RTD

I am very optimistic about the future of my city. If I wasn't, I would have left a long time ago, like many have.

Hmm.. so how come all of your posts are from an Edmonton IP address? Just visiting, I suppose?

[superduy]

Originally Posted by newflyer

Agreed ... and I expect to see Bishop Grandin to be significantly upgraded over the next decade.

Thats because its in the SW end of the city, if it was in the NE nothing of this such would be built!!