Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure

[bodaggin]

People forget that free flowing roads also double as transit expressways. The spending doesn't occur in a vacuum. It helps cars AND busses.

By creating expressways in/out of downtown, and around the ring, you've just built a network for your BRT to piggy-back off of. This dedicated BRT lane stuff they're building is nonsense. The whole point of BRT over LRT is that BRT doesn't need dedicated corridors. BRT has the versatility to be able to travel any road and route change on the fly with demand fluctuations. Unlike railways which are fixed forever. That's why BRT is so brilliant.

So by solving the traffic issue for cars, you're simultaneously building your BRT network at the same time. With the same money. Both Cars + Busses benefit from the same infrastructure. Two birds. One stone.

The BRT plan they proposed will cost $4B+ and has huge coverage gaps. I'd have to run numbers. But it may be cheaper to turn the above map green...

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

People forget that free flowing roads also double as transit expressways. The spending doesn't occur in a vacuum. It helps cars AND busses.

By creating expressways in/out of downtown, and around the ring, you've just built a network for your BRT to piggy-back off of. This dedicated BRT lane stuff they're building is nonsense. The whole point of BRT over LRT is that BRT doesn't need dedicated corridors. BRT has the versatility to be able to travel any road and route change on the fly with demand fluctuations. Unlike railways which are fixed forever. That's why BRT is so brilliant.

So by solving the traffic issue for cars, you're simultaneously building your BRT network at the same time. With the same money. Both Cars + Busses benefit from the same infrastructure. Two birds. One stone.

The BRT plan they proposed will cost $4B+ and has huge coverage gaps. I'd have to run numbers. But it may be cheaper to turn the above map green...

To keep it on your proposal, how do you justify tearing down a quarter of crescentwood for a free flowing Maryland to Waverley? How much would it cost and how do you square the circle of flattening on of the most tax dense neighbourhoods in the city. That and depressing the values of the rest of the neighbourhood via noise and automotive pollution? That's a big ask to shave a minute or two off a commute racing back to Dumpsville, MB aka Bridgwater

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

how do you justify tearing down a quarter of crescentwood for a free flowing Maryland to Waverley?

Easily: The wants of 100 don't supersede the needs of 100,000+.

I'm just reading the traffic data. Data doesn't care about feelings. It just speaks the reality. Reality points in this direction. It doesn't say this is the only way.

Also how do we justify spending $600m on a Chief Peguis extension that has no traffic? If I have $600m to spend, my first priorities based on the data are:

-$150m Overpass, Bishop/St Mary's (and address Dakota)
-$150m Overpass, Kenaston/McGillvary
-$200m Marion to Dugald re-route connection with Lag overpass
-$100m Kenaston 3-4 lane widening from Wilkes to Waverly. As far as leftover money will allow.

[craner]

Originally Posted by WildCake

… we are starting to recognize as a society that improvements to moving automobiles is temporary and is quickly backfilled by induced demand.

This is certainly not true in my experience in Calgary. Road expansion, interchanges, etc. in targeted congestion areas have made a tremendous improvement in traffic flow and not just “temporarily”.
And yet I continue to hear this garbage “induced demand” theory spewed as truth.
I think Winnipeg would greatly benefit from targeted road infrastructure improvements like those suggested by bodaggin.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by craner

This is certainly not true in my experience in Calgary. Road expansion, interchanges, etc. in targeted congestion areas have made a tremendous improvement in traffic flow and not just “temporarily”.
And yet I continue to hear this garbage “induced demand” theory spewed as truth.
I think Winnipeg would greatly benefit from targeted road infrastructure improvements like those suggested by bodaggin.

Some of his suggestions involve bulldozing whole well-established, 100+ year old neighbourhoods. No thanks. I'll spend 120 seconds longer on the road.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by craner

And yet I continue to hear this garbage “induced demand” theory spewed as truth.

Nailed it. Induced demand is quack-ology. Absorbing traffic from other routes is a GOOD thing. It makes the other routes flow better.

It's likely been posted before, but here's Winnipeg's traffic flow map. To contrast AADT data against the previously mapped common jam spots. The highest flow is the St James Bridge at 69,000 AADT.

Link for higher resolution: https://legacy.winnipeg.ca/publicwor...lowMap24HR.pdf

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

Some of his suggestions involve bulldozing whole well-established, 100+ year old neighbourhoods. No thanks. I'll spend 120 seconds longer on the road.

Yep!

IMO freeway-type construction is needed through routes like Centreport Canada way; something thats designed to expedite freight traffic. Having large freeway systems through town just to shave a couple minutes off of a commute seems a little wasteful, especially for a city that doesn't have a bottomless budget.

As for Induced Demand, no it's not garbage:

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-t...nduced-demand/

[Hecate]

It’s not very often that I look at a map of winnipeg, it’s amazing how horrible new development street layouts are.

[Mr Tall Forehead]

Originally Posted by Hecate

It’s not very often that I look at a map of winnipeg, it’s amazing how horrible new development street layouts are.

Another Winnipeg pity party…

Our suburbs look basically the same as the layout of new suburbs anywhere in North America.

[peg]

I hate a Winnipeg pity party. I will say, however, that suburban street layouts are bad regardless of where they are. I think this debate has happened often here, but build more grid/block-style developments!

Also, if we are going to expand road capacity (which is needed in certain areas - ie, alternatives to passing through downtown) it has to be done strategically - investing in multiple modes for that road/corridor. Induced demand is real, but it will not happen if transportation is diversified. Add bike lanes, strengthen transit, and plan parking in ways that it is less visually impactful to free up road space. The car has its place but so do all other modes of movement in a city.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Mr Tall Forehead

Another Winnipeg pity party…

Our suburbs look basically the same as the layout of new suburbs anywhere in North America.

Wonk wonk wonk. They are shitty layouts that should not be allowed. They reduce pedestrian activity and increase access times for emergency services. They create problems for transit. They are mindless mazes of wasted space that disorientate people.

Pity party. Ha

[Biff]

So the question is, what are developers to do? There is obviously a reason that all new suburbs in N/A look the same with curvy streets, cul-de-sacs and lakes. That is where the majority of people who buy new homes want to live. Don't you think that if developers thought a street grid layout with back lanes would sell, they would build them that way. It would most certainly be cheaper for them from a density and ease of construction perspective.

It still seems that most people buying new homes are still looking for the American dream from the 50's and 60's. Buy in the suburbs away from the city core in a big house with a yard.

We can argue all we want, right or wrong but the proof is in the sales and the fact they can't seem to build these suburbs fast enough.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by Biff

So the question is, what are developers to do? There is obviously a reason that all new suburbs in N/A look the same with curvy streets, cul-de-sacs and lakes. That is where the majority of people who buy new homes want to live. Don't you think that if developers thought a street grid layout with back lanes would sell, they would build them that way. It would most certainly be cheaper for them from a density and ease of construction perspective.

It still seems that most people buying new homes are still looking for the American dream from the 50's and 60's. Buy in the suburbs away from the city core in a big house with a yard.

We can argue all we want, right or wrong but the proof is in the sales and the fact they can't seem to build these suburbs fast enough.

Nah this argument has never held much water. It's the supply side that loves these developments, not the demand side. It's the most profitable option for developers so it's what they build. You hear the same bogus argument for vehicles - "people WANT to buy massive SUVs and nothing else!" ... no, they don't. It's what vehicle manufacturers want to sell so it's what they push. They phase out smaller vehicles because they don't make as much money.

Also, neighbourhoods from the 50s didn't look like Bridgewater. They looked like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9017...5410&entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8620...5410&entry=ttu

Also it's easily observable that there is a premium on houses in mature, walkable neighbourhoods, even in Winnipeg. Even more so in other cities without the same level of inner-city issues. Most of the stock there is older but an identical house will fetch more in River heights or Norwood than in Westwood or Windsor park. The market wants that type of development, but developers aren't particularly interested in building it.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Easily: The wants of 100 don't supersede the needs of 100,000+.

Oh the mental gymnastics where this argument can be applied to traffic but applying it to anything else is evil communism lol.

First off, River heights doesn't have 100 people. It has 20,000, all of whom would be impacted by a freeway slicing through their neighbourhood.

Second, the "needs" are not equal. On one side, the need is to preserve people's homes and community - the most important things in their lives. On the other side the "need" is to save a minute or two in traffic - trivial. Taking a trivial thing and multiplying it by 100,000 to make it seem more important than people's homes and communities is is just a philosophical trick to make the illogical appear logical. It's a deranged trolley problem where it's taken to such extremes that the answer should be obvious to anyone. Like, if 2 million people can get a free ice cream, but you have to kill an innocent man to make it happen, do you kill the guy? Certainly the needs of 2 million people to have a tasty treat outweigh the needs of one man?

Oh and nevermind the fact that you'd be tearing down some of the best tax revenue-generating property in the city and replacing it with a high-maintenance money pit, screwing all future taxpayers in the city whether they drive on the new freeway or not. What about the needs of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers?

[Biff]

I'm kind of talking in generalities here. I think we see things differently.

I know in the 50's and 60's the neighborhoods didn't look like Sage Creek, but it is/was the dream they are selling that is similar. The premiums on houses in mature neighborhood are real, but the numbers of houses being sold in the suburbs are likely higher. The numbers tossed around for Bridgwater were like 50,000 people. For prospective - honestly, in my circle of friends and families, no one lives in an intercity neighborhood. (Actually, one lives in River Heights)...likely where my views come from.

I have trouble believing that it is cheaper for a developer to build Sage Creek than to build a grid type neighborhood of the same number of units.

I don't have any numbers to back things up, except for my observations. I also don't have a lot of knowledge in residential home building.

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

Nah this argument has never held much water. It's the supply side that loves these developments, not the demand side. It's the most profitable option for developers so it's what they build.
You hear the same bogus argument for vehicles - "people WANT to buy massive SUVs and nothing else!" ... no, they don't. It's what vehicle manufacturers want to sell so it's what they push. They phase out smaller vehicles because they don't make as much money.

Also, neighbourhoods from the 50s didn't look like Bridgewater. They looked like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9017...5410&entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8620...5410&entry=ttu

Also it's easily observable that there is a premium on houses in mature, walkable neighbourhoods, even in Winnipeg. Even more so in other cities without the same level of inner-city issues. Most of the stock there is older but an identical house will fetch more in River heights or Norwood than in Westwood or Windsor park. The market wants that type of development, but developers aren't particularly interested in building it.

[pspeid]

I think it's usually a pretty safe bet that most manufacturers/developers will produce what makes them the most profit, then try to convince the consumer that's what they wanted all along. Of course there are exceptions, and thank goodness for those. We have some developers in town who take on projects for the good of the city, and are willing to see reduced profits to do so.

[bomberjet]

The whole "American dream" is a sales pitch.

[Mr Tall Forehead]

Originally Posted by Biff

I have trouble believing that it is cheaper for a developer to build Sage Creek than to build a grid type neighborhood of the same number of units.

I know there are multiple factors to consider in the cost of residential construction, but to build an inner city neighbourhood like River Heights, the developer would have to construct concrete road, back lane and sidewalk. Local roads in new areas (not collectors) typically don't have the lanes or sidewalks.

[BlackDog204]

Well the new lights at McGillivray and Brady road are now up and fully functional. That means between Brady and Walmart, there are 6 intersections with traffic lights, and not one roundabout.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

Oh the mental gymnastics.

First off, River heights doesn't have 100 people. It has 20,000, all of whom would be impacted by a freeway slicing through their neighbourhood.

On the other side the "need" is to save a minute or two in traffic - trivial.

It's 120 houses holy fuck you guys. You need 1 side of Waverly, that's it. Not the entire continent of Africa and a genocide. And River Heights would love it, because it would stop all the spillover traffic currently using their residential streets as a throughfare. Don't get mad at me for 80yrs of negligent city planning.

And it saves a lot more than "2 minutes".

The data posted said Winnipeg wastes 60hr per year on congestion. That's 1.5 weeks of work. Ask a Winnipegger to work 1.5 weeks for free per year and you'll have a revolt by noon. Yet this is what they're already duped into doing as a result of our shit roads.

You know what actually saved 3 minutes? The $600 million Blue BRT line. It's only 3 minutes faster than the regular Pembina 60 Bus from downtown to University. This isn't even hyperbole, it's fact.