Interesting comments by Biff at the top of this thread. Just going to add in a few random thoughts of my own in response:
-I can see the merit to the argument that Winnipeg could benefit from routing traffic around the inner city and downtown areas. The unfortunate reality is that the City Routes through downtown are busy thoroughfares with lots of cars and even semi-trailer through traffic. The big 18-wheeler grain trucks pounding through downtown every day do not make for a pleasant cycling environment. But that said, I'm not sure how you fix this problem without throwing down billions of dollars... you could probably get much better bang for the buck from a cycling standpoint by making targeted improvements to cycling infrastructure for a lot less money.
-I agree that the cycling/AT network is pretty piecemeal, but I would have to imagine that this is because it's so new... it's only in recent years that the City has seriously started building a network (as compared to a few paths here and there). I suppose it's natural to go after the low hanging fruit to start, although at some point, if the City wants to make the network truly useful, it will have to build the more complicated, more expensive parts (bridges, tunnels, etc.) that link the various components together. As it stands right now, I can ride my bike around my neighbourhood quite easily, but if I want to go into another part of town, I have to ride on narrow bridges or underpasses and that is not a pleasant experience... it effectively limits my range.
-To BDog's point, interesting that you mention the cycling capitals of Europe. No question that they generally have their share of suburban sprawl, but they also do a good job of making sure that even their suburban stroads make room for cyclists to ride safely. Here's a random example of a suburban intersection in Copenhagen... it still has clearly marked and in at least one direction I see here, fully separated cycling lanes.
https://goo.gl/maps/EqNceQPxQ9RwRWsZ7