unhappy Winnipegger
 

I joined this thread mostly because It bothers me to live in a north american city of 750, 000 people that has a major Ring Road (trans - canada highway) that is not a freeway, when other smaller cities like Regina and Halifax would have it as a freeway.

Yes, I know this has been talked about before, http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=137983&page=2 but it seems that the message got lost in trying to explain whether road or lrt is better at promoting sprawl.. in calgary???.. and not why winnipeg really doesnt have any freeways.. is it really because the province of manitoba and the city of winnipeg choose not to spend money on upgrading highways?/ for other reasons unknown, possibly everyone else on this continent sees freeways as a necessity whereas manitoba does not?

Does anyone know of any links that can compare the amount of cars on certain roadways in winnipeg, particularly between roads in and around winnipeg to freeways like the deerfoot or circumferential hwy?

BTW, when a city is designed the way Winnipeg is, being a "freeway free city " is not something to be proud of...:haha:

I also joined because I think Winnipeg could be so much more, I know Winnipeg has made some improvements recently in terms of downtown residential populations, but I think more needs to be done to encourage this, then I believe more businesses that bring people downtown will grow (businesses like restaurants for example, that seem to flourish in places like pembina highway in Fort Richmond, when they could instead be flourishing downtown)

traffic shmaffic....move closer to where you work and find something better to complain about.

traffic is about number 347 on the list of winnipeg's problems...if you can name a city with fewer traffic issues than winnipeg, i would love to hear it.

why exactly is winnipeg embarassing compared to halifax and regina?

I am not sure what exactly this thread is supposed to be about..?

Personally I don't see what the big deal is about "expressways" in cities in the size range of say Winnipeg.

I've driven around Calgary quite a bit, and the expressway system there is great after hours, or when traffic is light, but otherwise it can be a disaster that you cannot avoid if you need to go anywhere.

The beauty about Winnipeg is that for the most part there are about a multiple of different ways that you can use to get to any one point.

In my personal situation, traffic is a non-issue. I live in Wolseley and work downtown. I have no rivers to cross, and I usually walk to work.

Traffic is a lifestyle choice in Winnipeg, not an economic necessity, as somewhere like Toronto where house+yard=commute. If you want to live somewhere where you don't have to deal with gridlock down Pembina or Waverly, you can. Actually, it's usually cheaper to live where I live and avoid traffic as compared to those swanky new developments upwind of the dump. Go figure.

"you will never need to sit at a light turing left more then one cycle anywhere in winnipeg"

Obviously a lie, there are places in Thunder Bay where it can take more than five cycles to clear an intersection. :rolleyes:

Winnipeg wasn't really "designed" in any way, much of it predates comprehensive urban planning. The French settlers laid out long lots running perpendicular to the rivers and the city simply maintained that because it is easier than removing entire rural road networks like Calgary does. Windsor is the same way, many of their new suburbs actually maintain the grid. The simple fact is to build a freeway in Winnipeg, because it got so big so early, would require the demolition of thousands of structures and the expropriation of thousands of properties to make it possible. Probably why the ring road is so far outside of the city, instead of bisecting it like the ring roads in Regina, Dartmouth and Thunder Bay. The only place where ours runs through the middle of an urban area is through a neighbourhood that, at the time, was sparsely populated.

The real point of the thread was that I dislike the fact that the perimeter is not a freeway when places like Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Ontario have many freeways, it just seems embarrassing....

the rest I just basically trailed off onto another subject (the fact that downtown winnipeg needs a more solid residential population)

So where is the money going to come from? to turn the entire thing into a freeway (and lights will be eliminated over the next few years) would require hundreds of millions of dollars. We can't do that all at once. The lights at Saskatchewan will be gone soon as will the lights at Lagimodiere. There will also be a new arrangement where Waverly connects with the perimeter that will eventually be replaced by an overpass structure when the St. Norbert bypass is built. These things take time, but it will happen. As of now, there isn't really a traffic problem on the perimeter.

I'm guessing st.marys and the perimeter will also be upgraded to a interchange eventually after all of these major improvements as it is also yet another major intersection on the trans canada hwy that is not currently an interchange.

Can the government of Canada not help us out a little bit to "catch up" with the rest of the world?

How does one decide whether there is enough traffic to have either a freeway or an 'expressway'?

Look, I'd like a freeway just as much as you, but the reality is that a ) it isn't really a huge deal in the grand scheme of things and b ) Winnipeg and Manitoba already benefit from a large amount of federal money and c ) The perimeter has so far and will continue to see constant improvement over its life. We'll have a freeway (or close to it) some day, but unfortunately, we just have to wait and live with what we have.

The province is spending more money than ever on roads, but it only goes so far.

Meh. I think it's a blessing. Cities function fine without them, but they are useful on rural areas. Be thankful you, like most Canadian cities, don't have a freeway downtown. I've never had a problem in Winnipeg myself, though with road networks. But I don't live down there so it's my experience isn't as accurate.

I am guessing the province only spend the large sums of 'road money' on repaving and repairing its highways?


Maybe it is not a big deal to Manitoba, but to the rest of the world who decides to build freeways, it is?


Yes, I am happy that Winnipeg does not have any downtown Freeways bisecting and taking away from areas that could see urban growth. However, It just seemed to confuse me why other places in Canada can have freeways (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, ect) and Manitoba can not (as the main thing that pops into my head is that we can't afford it. This is when I thought that Canada is a big country and can help out less advantaged provinces to keep proper infustructer in place).

Oh well, I guess it was just a nice thought to imagine a free-flowing road way in manitoba, as I actually enjoy driving many of them (when not super congested, like I have before, and it just becomes a headache:yuck: ).

Just for fun does anyone have any links to the vehicular traffic on Winnipeg’s major routes so they can in fact be compared to what other provinces decided was enough traffic to warrant a 'freeway'?

Uh, no. It's silly to think these things only happen in Winnipeg. Freeways are built after large amount of traffic often times, and are built to alleviate the pressure on city roads and the other highways, but not just in Winnipeg. Many cities don't preplan because there is no way of knowing the traffic patterns in 5, 10, 15, or 20 years. They build when there is demand many times (although not all the time...).

really?...i've never sat through more than two cycles of a light at any time in winnipeg...and that is very rare...

people who complain about traffic in winnipeg have never been anywhere else.

its a myth that freeways solve traffic problems...freeways cause sprawl which only increases traffic...be glad we have no freeways...look what happened the second an underpass was built on kenaston, waverly west, the ikea retail development....pipelines to the burbs cause sprawl.

if you want to live 20kms from where you work, you deserve to sit in traffic....i hope its hot and you have no air conditioning and there is an accident that makes you late for work and you get a ticket at a photo radar intersection and there is a train that you have to wait for and the price of gas doubles and the drive through line at tims is really long and then it snows and the roads are icy so you have to slow down but you still cant stop and you slide into the only tree on your cul de sac but no damage is done because its trunk is only 4" in diameter and it just snapped under your car and you have to park on your driveway because the white door on your attached double car garage is stuck.

i fail to see how removing the few lights on the perimeter would change anything....there is hardly a backlog of traffic there.

the real problem came while sitting in a traffic jam on bishop grandon and driving through south winnipeg's traffic problems which just becomes annoying. The motivation for freeways came from google maps looking at the Maritimes many freeways, as it was more of just "why would they have that when we don't?"


I have actually been to calgary on the deerfoot, when there was no traffic moving at all, and I have seen this type of traffic in Winnipeg as well, obviously not with as many cars though but that is why i wanted to compare for interests sake.


truviking, as for the hateful comments, the reason i live in suburbia is because it was what was affordable at the time. I do not live in a cul de sac, and fail to see your good intentions with these comments.

And yes, in the summer I do enjoy riding my bike, and do travel to and from work by bike every know and than, as well as take the bus every day. What would be even better would be to see a healthy downtown residential population, many bike paths, as well as proper infrastructure. All of this seems to be already happening in Winnipeg, I do not see why this would be so personal to you. You do not have to shove every word of mine down my throat, as many of you seem to enjoy doing. All I was curious about was why the Maritimes spend so much more money on highways, but I guess it is obvious Manitoba is unique in not having freeways and takes pride in this sort of accomplishment and would prefer to have the perimeter stay a at grade expressway. It is fine with me; all I had was simple curiosity.

Although I do feel somewhat bad for the thread title, but couldn't think of anything better.. idk how to change it and if this is the reason so many winnipeggers are offended than please try to look past this before commenting.

A possible thread title could be along the lines of "Winnipeg's Trans-Canada Expressway?"

Manitoba will upgrade its routes as the need develops. There is money being spent on new roads and there is money being spent fixing the new ones, but these things are all very expensive. If you want to keep tabs on what is being done, here is the website:

http://tgs.gov.mb.ca/cts/

Click on roads and bridges and then 2009.

Also, current ongoing projects (though not all are listed because the crews on the ground are sometimes too lazy I suppose):

http://roaddata.gov.mb.ca/map/gmap/map.aspx

It's also important to note that Manitoba had one project that cost a great deal of money that many other places didn't have to worry about it. That particular project also surrounds Winnipeg (well, partly). For the cost of the ditch, we could have turned the perimeter into a freeway.

The Deerfoot in Calgary has some traffic, but other prairie cities like Winnipeg and Edmonton, and the always mentioned Calgary really do not have traffic issues compared to other places. Really.

south bound lag at grasie the left turn light there you can wind up sitting for 5 or more.... but then that spot is has a large incress in traffic the last while and needs the lights riped right out there http://www.google.ca/maps?ie=UTF8&ll...09559&t=h&z=17

Along Memorial Avenue, Fort William Road, and Red River Road in Thunder Bay, it is not uncommon, at least in my experiences on the bus, to have to wait through as many as five light cycles to get through the intersection during rush hour. There are times where buses get so backed up they start bunching, and this is on a suburban route with a 15 minute frequency. Even during light mid-day traffic on Memorial, you frequently have to wait two cycles to cross, especially at its intersection with the Harbour "Expressway" (A four lane undivided road with three lighted intersections within a kilometre of each other and multiple turnoffs to businesses). Turning left off of the Thunder Bay Expressway onto Highway 102 or Red River Road during rush hour can take up to five cycles as well, the left hand turning lane frequently backs up more than 200m during rush hour and on a few occasions has stretched almost half a kilometre. Traffic on Highway 102 and Red River Road frequently back up so badly during rush hour that it causes grid lock in Jumbo Gardens and on Junot Avenue. Some vehicles get stuck on Junot for as much as 10 minutes because of this. There were times when I was living in Jumbo Gardens that the traffic would be backed up right out of the urban area, and considering its population has grown more than 10% since then, I imagine the situation is worse. This isn't a wide-scale thing, it's just at a couple intersections along the busiest roads in the city. The Expressway/102-Red River problem could be alleviated somewhat by forcing some traffic onto John Street, a mile south, but the problem would still exist.

The only solution the province is doing right now is building double turning lanes on the expressway. They expropriated land for Parclos in 1992 or 1993, but that project (which would have turned the entire expressway into a true freeway) was cancelled when the Conservatives were elected. The only interchange planned right now is at a lightly travelled intersection on the edge of town. I have no idea why they chose to build one there. Our highways are just as bad as Manitoba's, if not worse. Many don't even have shoulders yet.

Traffic overall isn't too bad here, and commutes don't suffer too much, but there are choke points in our road infrastructure that I guess are worse than anything Winnipeg experiences. :shrug: The province isn't doing much about it either, I guess because they can't believe we suffer from these traffic problems just as much as Trueviking can't.

if winnipeg had gone ahead and built its vast freeway system it had planned we would not have the exchange!!!!! or the forks!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ummm, and you know this how?

How did you connect those dots?

I've had a similar experience heading east on bishop before the waverley intersection, which I can't remember how many cycles but there was not accident just plain traffic jam. The traffic went all the way from the intersection to the bend where it turns into keneston.

Also, is there any website which records the amount of traffic on winnipeg streets, highways, ect??

I'm not sure what time you bought your house, but for my 30 or so years, the most affordable living (in terms of house prices) has always been closer to the core, not in suburbia.

I'm guessing you are against the city expanding in size?, thus where would the more proper place to put the new ikea be, downtown?

Traffic synchronization will fix that.

Well I'd hope so, if this is true than likely an interchange at waverley and bishop is not needed and would add a lot of relief; usually I avoid super busy routes anyways so I do not drive down bishop all the time, perhaps this has gotten better by now since the last time I drove down it?

I've never actually had problems on Bishop going in that direction (probably because of the time of day that i travel). I have on Kenaston, but I didn't have ti wait all that long.

Yes... same for me, usually there is certain sections of roadways which see extreme traffic at rush hour, than once past that it is free flowing again (pembina, bishop, keneston, ect...); but the real point of the thread was simply because the Maritime has freeways and we (Manitoba) don't on the trans-canada hwy; and basically what I am getting out of this is that Manitoba is simply catching up with in terms of interchanges on the perimeter, and is eventually going to make it a freeway, because interchanges cost lots of $.

Here is something to ponder (perspective). I don't necessarily agree with the notion that the Maritimes can do it and Manitoba won't. It might well have everything to do with density. It must cost Manitoba HUGE bucks to manage an infrastructure as widespread as it is. This same argument appears when US highways are bench-marked. Especially those in North Dakota.

New Brunswick
Area Ranked 11th
Total 72,908 km2 (28,150 sq mi)
Land 71,450 km2 (27,590 sq mi)
Water (%) 1,458 km2 (563 sq mi) (2.0%)
Population Ranked 8th: Total (2009) 748,319
Density 10.50 /km² (27.2 /sq mi)

Nova Scotia
Area Ranked 12th
Total 55,283 km2 (21,345 sq mi)
Land 53,338 km2 (20,594 sq mi)
Water (%) 1,946 km2 (751 sq mi) (3.5%)
Population Ranked 7th Total (2005): 939,531
Density 17.49 /km² (45.3 /sq

Manitoba
Area Ranked 8th
Total 649,950 km2 (250,950 sq mi)
Land 548,360 km2 (211,720 sq mi)
Water (%) 101,593 km2 (39,225 sq mi) (15.6%)
Population Ranked 5th Total (2009) 1,213,815
Density 2.14 /km² (5.5 /sq mi)

That said, and those outside the perimeter highway bristle when this is said, but Winnipeg/Southern Manitoba is the economic engine that drives this province. Yet disproportionate money is spent on rural/Northern Manitoba. Perhaps the powers that be should spend more time and money making the engine run more smoothly.

Food for thought...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2558/...492d6600_b.jpg

It was really this picture that also pissed me off as I just have the feeling that Manitoba is being left behind in the dust in terms of highway infrastructure compared to other places in Canada (this image being taken in Halifax), and seems to have similar traffic to bishop or waverley at rush hour.

And grumpy old man, I was only talking about a small section (trans-canada) of the perimeter, not the entire province's highways.

Well, a lot of the "engine" runs on the resources extracted from elsewhere in the province.

It's true the the Maritimes have some freeways, but their highway budgets are concentrated in a much smaller area and their traffic, urban and rural, tends to be squeezed into a few constricted arteries. Not like Winnipeg or Manitoba as a whole. Also their freeways take advantage of natural valleys; often it looks like the amount of earthworks required to construct an interchange out here (I'm in Halifax right now) would be very small compared to the huge amount of work that I remember for the creation of the 1/12 interchange at Ste. Anne, for example.

Also it is probably true that politics in the small-town-dominated Maritimes has traditionally been more focused on delivering goodies like roads to government MLAs' constituencies, giving jobs to the MLA's cousins and his buddy's paving company, than has been the case in Manitoba. The connection between rampant political corruption and quality of highways in North America would make for an interesting study, actually. One example would be that crazy "Interstate 99" in Pennsylvania or wherever or Alaska's famous "Bridge to Nowhere".

But Halifax needs that because the arterial roads (to the extent there even are any worthy of the name) are almost totally useless for getting around. Winnipeg is just the opposite. The freeway plan was rejected in the early 70s because urban freeway-building was going out of fashion everywhere. While a few more interchanges could be built at strategic spots, on the whole the lack of freeways is one of the good things about Winnipeg, IMHO.

He's referring to these plans:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/manitobamaps/2962340566/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/manitobamaps/2808499535/

I also hope that one day people can take photos of Winnipeg and Manitoba scenery where 50% of the photo is concrete and asphalt.

u ever seen the plans gom

Look at a map of Dartmouth. That is the ONLY east-west road in that city. It also spans a lake, and that mall is the biggest in the Maritimes. Where in Winnipeg would you find such a set-up?

Nope. Never even heard of them...

gues u missed all the great transit debates then on newwinnipeg

Idolizing Calgary's Deerfoot is a pretty narrow window into how cities function.

No freeway in North America has made any neighbourhood more walkable, friendlier, supported more local business (other than construction companies) or more vibrant.

Freeways enhance sprawl, propel car culture and spawn waves of urban ugliness. Winnipeg is very very lucky it has escaped the freeway craze thus far unscathed. That picture you posted above with the giant parking lot is suburban ugliness defined.

That said, your freeway wish is being granted for about 2km or so from the airport to the perimeter in a few years.

Most importantly, why don't you move closer to downtown? You can walk, bike or take transit to work and not have to worry about freeways anymore. And your life and your city will be the better for it.

They are not something to be idolized.

Smart cities like Portland actually tear them down.

As of right now moving closer to the core sounds very attractive, anything basically seems better than driving up and down pembina highway every day, and this was one of my headaches for the past year and a half, lol. I actually hate suburbia (driving through bishop grandon past st.vital mall, and many suburban houses, as its almost driving me nuts!:haha: )

I also joined because I do want a better winnipeg to live in for the possible future, and think there are obviously many other ways winnipeg can improve upon itself and become a better place to live, work, and play, as well I like to stay informed with what is going on in my city. :tup:

I agree with whoever said that not having a freeway is 347th on a list of winnipeg's problems. The perimeter could definately do with some extra cash being pumped into it, but ultimately why does it matter if its a "freeway" or not?

Not to jump down your throat UrbanPlanerr, but this strikes me as another case of Winnipegers feeling inadequate and latching on to some kind of "big city item" we lack as the cause. A perimeter Freeway wont suddenly make us a thriving metropolis.

Winnipeg has the deck stacked against it in many ways, but if we just focused on playing to its strengths, and stopped constantly comparing ourselves to calgary or vancouver, etc. etc., we'd be much better off.

I agree with Urban Planner.. Winnipeg's highway system is nearly non-existant. This has been possible primarily due to the high volume corridores like Portage ave, Main Street and Pembina Hwy. As the city continues to grow in population and industrial infrastructure the city expressway system and the main highways flowing into the city will need to be upgraded significantly. The designation as the only primary inland port in Canada will be the driver of many upgrades.

Its not even a mater of weither it will happen ... it is happening and will continue to happen to much larger extent in the future. Chief Peguis expansion, Route 90 widening from Sterling Lyon to the St.James Bridge, a new expressway through the new Centreport, the planned extension of the Charleswood Parkway, the planned extention of Route 90 to the Perimetre and eventual link to Hyw 75, the planned Headingly bypass... ect ect. As the city draws towards a million people there will be many more expanded roadways and interchanges to come.

Yes Winnipeg has a ways to go to catch up to many other cities in transportation infrastructure, but things will be changing in the years to come. Eliminating traffic lights on the Perimetre will be a great achievement, but I think the inner ring road (Route 90, Bishop, Lag and Chief Peguis) will be the higher focus, as it handles higher traffic levels.

I also don't buy into the lack of funding theory, as Manitoba has more then enough money to spend on a vast array of over budget projects. With proper management Manitoba would be well on its way to having much better infrastructure.

oh I see it's ok to whine about roads but nothing else Winnipeg related. Oh heck why didn't ya say so!!! :whip:

Name one over-budget project by government other than the floodway. Manitoba has proper management, and we have improving infrastructure. It took this province a long time to recover from what the last two governments did. Lets never turn back there. Right now we have improving healthcare, improving infrastructure, and a growing economy. What more could we possibly ask for?

I mean, here's the thing. Money doesn't grown on trees, and there is more than one priority. Do we want the Siemens Institute, or an overpass? I know which one I want. Do we want a new heart centre, or an overpass? I know which one we should want. Do we want a strategy to further reduce crime in Winnipeg, or an overpass?

We're not spending more than ever on infrastructure, but it's a constant balance. We can't just build whatever we want. We have one of the few fiscally responsible governments left in the country, and I'm more than a bit thankful for that.

hateful comments?!...yikes thin skin.

my coments were made in humour to emphasize the point that i could not care less how long you have to sit in traffic to get from your suburban house to wherever you work...if it is a problem for you, move closer to where you work....dont ask the rest of us to pay for a larger road to solve your problem....the costs of sprawl on the city, in urban quality, civic finances and service construction / maintenance are not sustainable and i for one do not want to subsidize your wish to live in the far flung edges of the city....

the longer it takes you and other suburbanites to get to work the better it is for the city....maybe next time you buy a house you will make proximity to the centre a priority....building a bigger road so people can live farther and farther way is not the solution....enabling sprawl is short sighted and in the long run causes far more problems than it solves....i can think of much better ways of spending civic money than building you more roads, schools, water/waste services, snow clearing etc.

freeways do not create better cities...in fact, its generally an inverse relationship...the worst cities on earth in respect to urban form are in the united states....coincidentally the nation with the most freeways.

canadian cities in general are more compact, higher density (twice as dense) and more sustainable because they have fewer freeways than their american counterparts.....it is an absolute fact that freeways cause sprawl....there is a direct relationship to a city's footprint and its freeway system....i will let you research on your own why sprawl is bad for cities.

vancouver is very often touted as one of the best examples of urban form in north america....because it has no freeways...compare it to seattle and you will see the difference.


you guessed right....i dont think ikea should be downtown, but the 1.5 million square feet of retail that will accompany it and the 8000 surface parking stalls, is nothing but damaging to the city...it only serves to decentralize it further....it is a snowball effect...you build the underpass, and waverly west is more viable, then millions of square feet of retail are built to service it, then we need an underpass at waverly, which causes yet more development even further out...

as the city grows in area, disproportionatly to its growth in population, tax dollars are stretched even thinner to provide all the services the suburbs expect....it is not sustainable, financially, urbanistically or environmentally.

simply put, if one of my tax dollars paid to service 10 square feet of city area (roads, snow clearing, schools, garbage collection etc), but as the city expands and becomes less dense with fewer people to pay for a larger area, that one dollar now has to pay to service 15 square feet, either my taxes are going to go up or my services will decrease....if we can get more people to live in the same area, splitting the cost between more taxpayers, then that dollar might need to pay for only 7 square feet and services will improve or taxes can go down.

are you trying to make the argument that big box retail development is good for the city too?


next time you are at mcnally buy this book:

http://www.amazon.ca/Death-Life-Grea.../dp/067974195X

consider the built up area of calgary compared to that of winnipeg....with 2/3 of the population you can fit 2 1/2 winnipeg's inside the footprint of calgary....this is due in part to the freeway system that has enabled sprawl in the larger city.

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/7301/cities.jpg

Comparing Sprawl In U.S. And Canadian Cities
Author: Patrick Condon
http://www.planetizen.com/node/132

A comparison of American and Canadian cities demonstrates that sprawl in has less to do with the American Dream than with the influence the highway, oil and auto lobby has on US transportation policy.

Americans are famous for debating issues without reference to foreign precedents. The sprawl debate is no exception. Yet a country exists that grew up with the US, has a similar government, a similar standard of living, similar level of education, even generally similar patterns of immigration. Canada is that country. I moved here in 1992 from my native US. During that period I have become more and more convinced that Canada has something to offer as the US debates the pressing issues of affordability, congestion, pollution, and equity -- all issues that are intimately tied to urban form and sprawl.

Canadian cities are, on average, twice as dense as their American counterparts, with 14.2 persons per hectare in the U.S. compared to 28.5 in Canada. Canadians own nearly as many cars as Americans, but drive them about half as much per year. Consequently, their per capita contribution to global warming is half that of their American counterparts. Canadians are also about 2.7 times more likely to take transit than are Americans.

Too often Americans, when asked to explain these differences, say its because the US has a different culture. Americans are pioneers and need a lot of space. Americans have a special love for the automobile and the freedom it provides. The truly courageous will point to race as a factor - red-lining and fear impelling white flight to suburban areas. They say that Canada, which does not have the history of white vs. black strife, cannot be compared to the US. Finally, those with an even deeper understanding of policy matters will point out that neither the mortgage deduction nor cheap Fannie Mae loans were available to Canadians, factors that dramatically increased homeownership in the suburbs.

While all of the above appear to have played a role, we suggest they are all overemphasized. In our analysis of the difference (PDF, 2 MB) between the two countries it appears that the answer is far simpler. As James Carvelle might say: it's the highways stupid!

Why do we say this? For one thing, because the huge difference in city form itemized above did not exist prior to WWII. Prior to 1940, US and Canadian cities seem identical. A comparative analysis of urban neighbourhoods built before this date show very similar patterns of density and land use. Even the size of the blocks and average parcel sizes are the same. It appears that transit, the streetcar in particular, was the major force controlling city form in both countries. The "streetcar city" pattern is one where trolley car arterials are accessible within a five or six minute walk of most homes while commercial and jobs areas are arrayed linearly along these arterials. Whatever cultural differences existed between Canada and the US at that time -- whether it was "love of freedom" or the "American Dream" -- seems to have had very little influence on city form.

So what changed? Why did the two countries diverge so markedly? It appears that highway construction was the major impetus. While Fannie Mae, mortgage deductions, and race were important, highway construction seems to be by far the most important stimulus to sprawl. To illustrate this point: Canadian cities typically spent far fewer dollars per capita on freeways, but Canadian cities that spent more heavily on highway construction exhibit similar reductions in density and increases in auto comparable to US counterparts-- even without the problems of race and the inducements of mortgage interest deductions.

Conversely, certain US cities avoided the more serious consequences of sprawl during this same period. Portland and Seattle have not seen the kind of wholesale abandonment that still eats away older St. Louis neighbourhoods. Interestingly, Portland and Seattle have only .5 meters of freeway lane per capita, at the lowest end of US cities studied. St. Louis residents get twice as many freeway miles per capita, the highest of all cities studied. In fact, freeway lane miles per capita have been steadily increasing in St. Louis during the same decades that neighbourhood abandonment and urban decay accelerated

Our analysis also suggests that if you really want to move asset value from center cites to the suburbs build highways. In Vancouver, a city with no freeway lanes at all and with a paltry .25 meters of freeway per capita, pre WWII neighbourhoods have seen an average increase of 300% in inflation-adjusted dollars. Similar increases accrue in Portland and Seattle, particularly during periods where the amount of freeway lane per capita was dropping. Meanwhile homeowners in St. Louis appear to have been on the wrong end of a capital value flight to the suburbs, an asset flight that seems to us to have been induced by overbuilding highways. Parcels in inner city areas of St. Louis have declined by 30% in inflation adjusted dollars over the 40 year period of intense highway building.

While our analysis is far from conclusive (and indeed, given the degree of interrelation between transportation, land use, market forces and so forth, a completely satisfactory isolation of the influence of one factor or another may not even be possible) it does show a strong correlation between the amount of highways miles per capita and urban land values in older "trolley car" neighbourhoods. We also believe that the cross border comparison allows us to separate the influence of highway construction from that of race, home financing, and tax laws. Finally, we believe that our analysis, while preliminary, suggests that sprawl in the US has less to do with the American Dream than with the influence the highway, oil and auto lobby has on US transportation policy.

Excellent posts trueviking...

Great post above, viking. I hadn't really considered, to that degree, of how freeways can encourage suburban sprawl.

Myself, I think that the 150,000 sq feet of 'business park' that will be part of the Ikea project is the most notable threat to downtown, and is a sprawl encourager.

I had wrote before that the proliferation of 'business parks' will be bad for downtown. Topping my list of negativity around business parks:

a) encourage new business opening in or moving to Winnipeg to locate out in the suburbs at the business parks.
b) encourage current downtown businesses to move to the suburban 'business parks,' you know... "because it's safer and the parking is free."
c) encourage workers in said business parks to move closer to work in the burbs, rather than consider living more central.

What upsets me greatly about this whole IKEA stuff, is mainly how Katz & Co. totally bent over backwards for the project as a whole... the project which, of course, includes the 'business park' component.

I highly doubt that the IKEA people would've folded the project for Winnipeg if our Mayor grew a pair of balls and said "no to your business park." Really don't think that the project would be contingent on that. If the land was already zoned as such that a business park could go up, that might be one thing (though I still wouldn't be happy and would want it rezoned so it couldn't happen), but for Katz & Co. to go out of their way to make it happen is extremely counter-productive for our downtown revitalization.

The creation of suburban 'business parks' is, IMO, one of the greatest threats to downtown revitalization (after crime). I mean, the 'business park' for IKEA... 150,000 sq feet... that might be a decent 10-15 floor building (?) in downtown where possibly hundreds of people would work. Damn it!

Recently, I studied that Tuxedo Business Park... the sorts of business in there isn't neighbourhood 'front-line' stores (bakeries, autopac dealers, etc, etc, etc). By far, most were the types of business you would want to see located downtown, in a tower. (ie: high finance, software development, etc).

(150,000 sq foot source)