Winnipeg | Portage and Main

[WinCitySparky]

^That’s my take as well. Wanna live in a neoliberal world? Have the businesses that rely on the infrastructure pay for it themselves. If it means taxpayer maintenance dollars can be directed elsewhere then I’m here for it.

[wags_in_the_peg]

As FYI the lift is currently broken at one of the buildins in the underground. Feel bad for anyone that needs it and also can't cross P&M. The underground has way too many up stairs, down stairs to get in out of each concourse

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Browaty voted for it. Holy cow.

From the CBC news website

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/portage-and-main-opening-to-pedestrians-approved-1.7151756

"The chief proponent of that plebiscite, Coun. Jeff Browaty, said he would vote for the mayor's motion if it was changed to explicitly call for a traffic study."

Such a weird proviso. There seem to have been endless traffic studies, so this seems like an excuse to me. Not that I care, the vote finally went the right way.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Labroco

I also believe the discussion of closing the underground is far from over. The City had an obligation to set aside funds for these infrastructure maintenance issues and failed to do so. The adjacent owners have paid substantial taxes for over 40 years to also ensure infrastructure they rely on is maintained. There will be a quiet “full court press” to find a way for the access to be maintained. The owners have already paid for this maintenance and now will expect it to be dealt with. It’s not their exclusive responsibility to fund these differed maintenance issues again.

Yeah, that argument will go just about no where. You could say the same for any infrastructure maintenance in this city. We all pay for it.

And for a poor city with vastly more important infrastructure that is crumbling (sewer, roads, bridges, transit) a plea by a few comparatively wealthy buidling owners is gonna fall really flat.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by trueviking

No way the underground closes. It’s all about leverage. With the barricades up the city is completely responsible for paying to maintain the underground. The property owners benefit but we pay for it. Let people cross at grade and threaten to close the underground and suddenly all the leverage flips from the property owners to the city. They have ten years before it’s a real issue. Its all a play. Open it up and then turn to the property owners and say we are closing the underground and you will be cut off from the skywalk system. if you want to keep the underground open, let’s talk about how much it’s worth to you. It’s a genius plan.

If I remember correctly any past discussion of opening P & M during the period of the original agreement was shut down immediately by the property owners. They basically used it like a club; no discussion, just suck it up, city.

IMO: If trueviking's analysis is correct, Gillingham has not only shown a (somewhat) progressive streak, but a canniness as a politician to get things done. As sad as it is to admit, he knows what a large chunk of Winnipeggers primarily care about; their taxes and their drive time. He's been able to use both of these to move along a positive project and get public opinion on his side.

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by pspeid

If I remember correctly any past discussion of opening P & M during the period of the original agreement was shut down immediately by the property owners. They basically used it like a club; no discussion, just suck it up, city.

IMO: If trueviking's analysis is correct, Gillingham has not only shown a (somewhat) progressive streak, but a canniness as a politician to get things done. As sad as it is to admit, he knows what a large chunk of Winnipeggers primarily care about; their taxes and their drive time. He's been able to use both of these to move along a positive project and get public opinion on his side.

Here's my tinfoil hat covered brain analysis on this on what the possible outcome would be.

Scott gets voted in as mayor of Winnipeg, lays relatively low while understanding and going over ongoing issues. Later, almost out of nowhere more than a year after being elected, introduces the idea to open P&M with some actual reasons used as leverage, one of them proposing to close down the intersection for 5 years if they want to go ahead with the idea of replacing the membrane. Get's almost everyone on his side and passes a motion to open the intersection, but hesitant to close the underground circus.

Consults with designers and engineers and to nobody's surprise, there is some money left over to actually open the intersection and keep the underground open with the major last hurdle being if citizens are okay with traffic chaos for at least 5 years. At that point, traffic patterns would change in those 5 years, and by the time intersection is fully reconstructed and reopened once again, more pedestrians will be walking around that intersection with the addition of the transit station on Portage Ave E. Traffic patterns and volume would increase again, but nowhere near to pre-reconstruction and closure of Portage and Main. Things have worked out in the end, and the conversation of opening/closing Portage and Main has been put to bed once and for all.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

As FYI the lift is currently broken at one of the buildins in the underground. Feel bad for anyone that needs it and also can't cross P&M. The underground has way too many up stairs, down stairs to get in out of each concourse

The entrance from the Scotiabank building closes at 10pm, too, so you're SOL if you try and cross to/from that corner at night.

[Wigs]

Portage & Main really needs a pedestrian scramble intersection.
If Edmonton can do it (I believe they have at least 2 downtown now) so can Winnipeg.
Bump out the corners so the crossing isn't as far as well.

• Video Link

It's so stupid that in a city (Canada's 6th largest city limits) of nearly 800,000 in a metro rapidly approaching 1M that the main/busiest intersection downtown became hostile to pedestrians for decades!

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Portage & Main really needs a pedestrian scramble intersection.
If Edmonton can do it (I believe they have at least 2 downtown now) so can Winnipeg.
Bump out the corners so the crossing isn't as far as well.

• Video Link

It's so stupid that in a city (Canada's 6th largest city limits) of nearly 800,000 in a metro rapidly approaching 1M that the main/busiest intersection downtown became hostile to pedestrians for decades!

IMO P & M is the perfect place to establish the city's first pedestrian scramble.

I think we have to remember how desperate the city was for some downtown development when "Trizec" and the underground walkways were first agreed to. The downtown is practically humming these days compared to back then.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Portage & Main really needs a pedestrian scramble intersection.
If Edmonton can do it (I believe they have at least 2 downtown now) so can Winnipeg.
Bump out the corners so the crossing isn't as far as well.

• Video Link

It's so stupid that in a city (Canada's 6th largest city limits) of nearly 800,000 in a metro rapidly approaching 1M that the main/busiest intersection downtown became hostile to pedestrians for decades!

Excellent. Thank you.

Population is likely higher now.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

In 2018, it was

1) Regent and Lag
2) Portage and Morary
3) Portage and Main
4) Waverley and Bishop
5) Kenaston and Sterling Lyon
6) Century and Ness

I'm guess these moved up, and Portage and Main moved down to 6?

I still can't believe they never planned an overpass for Kenaston and Sterling Lyon. I was always under the impression that the city would build an overpass for the Bishop Grandin- Waverley street interchange. Are there any plans to do so eventually?

Edmonton built a fly over for the sole purpose of residents to get to IKEA ( and to a lesser extent- South Edmonton Common) around 15 years ago.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

I still can't believe they never planned an overpass for Kenaston and Sterling Lyon. I was always under the impression that the city would build an overpass for the Bishop Grandin- Waverley street interchange. Are there any plans to do so eventually?

Edmonton built a fly over for the sole purpose of residents to get to IKEA ( and to a lesser extent- South Edmonton Common) around 15 years ago.

This should be moved to the Winnipeg R&I thread. Both of those intersections are listed for interchanges in the drafts for the next Transportation Master Plan 2050. See page 42/43 on this document (24th slide):

LINK

That doesn't mean it'll get done in our lifetime. I keep seeing Fermor/Lag as being a sooner priority in CoW documents for whatever reason. I don't drive through there often but I've never thought of that as a higher priority than the inner ring road intersections.

Edmonton was able to add a flyover to serve that commercial development because #2 and that segment of Anthony Henday were already freeways so they couldn't pull off a Winnipeg and slap lights there, since there would be no other existing light-controlled intersections a mere km in every directions, like it was in Winnipeg. They also probably had enough dignity and Edmonton was in a strong enough growth position that they could impose demands on the developers for them to cover most or all the infrastructure needs of the development, unlike Winnipeg where they can usually get out of their infrastructure obligations (see Waverley West).

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by WildCake

This should be moved to the Winnipeg R&I thread. Both of those intersections are listed for interchanges in the drafts for the next Transportation Master Plan 2050. See page 42/43 on this document (24th slide):

LINK

That doesn't mean it'll get done in our lifetime. I keep seeing Fermor/Lag as being a sooner priority in CoW documents for whatever reason. I don't drive through there often but I've never thought of that as a higher priority than the inner ring road intersections.

Edmonton was able to add a flyover to serve that commercial development because #2 and that segment of Anthony Henday were already freeways so they couldn't pull off a Winnipeg and slap lights there, since there would be no other existing light-controlled intersections a mere km in every directions, like it was in Winnipeg. They also probably had enough dignity and Edmonton was in a strong enough growth position that they could impose demands on the developers for them to cover most or all the infrastructure needs of the development, unlike Winnipeg where they can usually get out of their infrastructure obligations (see Waverley West).

I can't see them doing an overpass of some sort anytime soon.

Even if they did, they would have to do something similar to how the CPT flyover on Main St. being planned.

Your link is broken by the way. Got an XML error.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by WildCake

Edmonton was able to add a flyover to serve that commercial development because #2 and that segment of Anthony Henday were already freeways so they couldn't pull off a Winnipeg and slap lights there,

This is just not correct.

Up until 2011, the QE2 limited access highway ended around Anthony Henday overpass (which was completed in 2006). For several years, Calgary Trail and 23 Ave NW were at grade. They built both at the same time, and now that highway is limited access to roughly 34 Ave NW. It was definitely not a freeway, when it was constructed around 2011.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

This is just not correct.

Up until 2011, the QE2 limited access highway ended around Anthony Henday overpass (which was completed in 2006). For several years, Calgary Trail and 23 Ave NW were at grade. They built both at the same time, and now that highway is limited access to roughly 34 Ave NW. It was definitely not a freeway, when it was constructed around 2011.

I looked on historical Google Maps and the 23 Ave NW/QEII and this Ikea flyover were built in the summer of 2009.

Either way, timeline doesn't matter for this point. Even if it wasn't a freeway when Ikea was built, Edmonton had the clout to protect it as a future freeway when that corner was developed and commercialized.

Winnipeg's response to Ikea arriving was more along the lines of "Your honour, we are so blessed with the presence of your blue and yellow warehouse in our humble and destitute city. How can we provide the most convenient and cheap access for you, no matter how much it hamstrings any future roadway upgrades for us. "

Kenaston/Sterling Lyon interchange is a waste of planning efforts unless astronomical sums of money are spent. I can't figure out which route would be the free flow, if both? There's lights 250m to the south, 300m to the west, and a building will eventually go to the NW corner of the intersection because the city protected jack all for future ROW needs.

Might as well focus on doing William Clement to Abinojii Mikanah properly, but I'm not holding my breath on that.

[pspeid]

^^ I remember the city giving Ikea some leeway on their signage, but I can't remember anything about roadway access (though I could be wrong). Even if they did, seriously, who cares? I'd rather be able to say "Winnipeg has an Ikea" than "Winnipeg has a free flow road where you can drive past things at high speed". If I remember correctly, Winnipeg was, and still is, too small for the typical Ikea placement (I think they usually insist on a population of 1 million or more?). If we had to kiss some Swedish butt and adjust a road and signage, I personally think it was worth it...and I never bought from Ikea before they came here.

Anyhoo, since this is the P & M thread, I'm looking forward to seeing some plans and timelines for the re-opening.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by pspeid

^^ I remember the city giving Ikea some leeway on their signage, but I can't remember anything about roadway access (though I could be wrong). Even if they did, seriously, who cares? I'd rather be able to say "Winnipeg has an Ikea" than "Winnipeg has a free flow road where you can drive past things at high speed". If I remember correctly, Winnipeg was, and still is, too small for the typical Ikea placement (I think they usually insist on a population of 1 million or more?). If we had to kiss some Swedish butt and adjust a road and signage, I personally think it was worth it...and I never bought from Ikea before they came here.

Anyhoo, since this is the P & M thread, I'm looking forward to seeing some plans and timelines for the re-opening.

There are plenty of Ikea stores in population centres of less than a million. Quebec City and Halifax to name two others in Canada.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by cheswick

There are plenty of Ikea stores in population centres of less than a million. Quebec City and Halifax to name two others in Canada.

That I did not know! Thanks I was under the impression they only built in larger centres.

[rdaner]

As far as Halifax goes I know that the store is intended to serve the entire Maritimes region and there is a large student population.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by WildCake

I looked on historical Google Maps and the 23 Ave NW/QEII and this Ikea flyover were built in the summer of 2009.

Dude, I was in Edmonton in 2011, and the QE2/23Ave NW diamond interchange, and the flyover to the mall were not complete, until the fall of 2011.

Winnipeg's response to Ikea arriving was more along the lines of "Your honour, we are so blessed with the presence of your blue and yellow warehouse in our humble and destitute city. How can we provide the most convenient and cheap access for you, no matter how much it hamstrings any future roadway upgrades for us. "

Winnipeg would have built an overpass and off ramps to IKEA if they want to lure the company here faster.

Kenaston/Sterling Lyon interchange is a waste of planning efforts unless astronomical sums of money are spent. I can't figure out which route would be the free flow, if both?

Considering they knew what was planned, a cloverleaf would have been ideal.


The city fucked up the Waverley-Bishop Grandin Blvd interchange too. If one were to notice the way Waverley heights was done, it gave room for a future overpass. Then the city decided they needed an auto mall in close proximity to the north. Today, the only thing that would work, would probably be a diamond interchange.