Winnipeg | Naawi-Oodena | Kapyong Barracks Redevelopment

[FactaNV]

Sounds like Brokenhead should fork some money over then. Thr city cannot afford a billion dollars and a — road with the added servicing for a site that will never pay property taxes to offest the cost.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

Sounds like Brokenhead should fork some money over then. Thr city cannot afford a billion dollars and a — road with the added servicing for a site that will never pay property taxes to offest the cost.

My bet is that they're making this case publicly at the city's behest. Gillingham wants to position his road widening project as if it's some sort of Indigenous sovereignty/economic development projects so that Ottawa kicks in.

[WinCitySparky]

— that’s slimy

The extra lane should be dedicated for rapid transit period.

[bomberjet]

They're just making noise. Aint nothing going to be fast about Kenaston Widening.

[jim_bred]

Originally Posted by WinCitySparky

— that’s slimy

The extra lane should be dedicated for rapid transit period.

So 1 in 10 commuters can use it? Naww

[WinCitySparky]

Building a fast dedicated system makes more people use it and reduces congestion. Building more car lanes for carbrains makes even more congestion. Figure it out.

[jim_bred]

Originally Posted by WinCitySparky

Building a fast dedicated system makes more people use it and reduces congestion. Building more car lanes for carbrains makes even more congestion. Figure it out.

When it comes to commuting private vehicles outnumber transit 8 to 1 in this city, that's not going to change with a dedicated transit lane.

Rapid transit is important and needs attention but it's not a primary focus.

[WinCitySparky]

Cars shouldn’t be a primary focus if we are ever going to become a mature and functional city. A billion dollars is spent better pretty much anywhere.

Private vehicles outnumber transit because we keep wasting money in roads. Spend the money on transit and stop the idiocy and waste of endless car growth.

[jim_bred]

Originally Posted by WinCitySparky

Cars shouldn’t be a primary focus if we are ever going to become a mature and functional city. A billion dollars is spent better pretty much anywhere.

Private vehicles outnumber transit because we keep wasting money in roads. Spend the money on transit and stop the idiocy and waste of endless car growth.

Private vehicles outnumber transit because it makes the most sense for 80% of the city population. The highest % of transit usage in the country is just over 25% in Toronto and we're nowhere near the density of that city obviously. No one is taking transit across town just for the hell of it, people are busy and time is valuable.

I know the billion dollar amount is catchy and grabs headlines but it's 750 mil, only a third of that is for the actual widening of the road.

Do we need to improve transit in the city? Yes, absolutely but it's not a one or the other type of thing.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by jim_bred

Private vehicles outnumber transit because it makes the most sense for 80% of the city population. The highest % of transit usage in the country is just over 25% in Toronto and we're nowhere near the density of that city obviously. No one is taking transit across town just for the hell of it, people are busy and time is valuable.

I know the billion dollar amount is catchy and grabs headlines but it's 750 mil, only a third of that is for the actual widening of the road.

Do we need to improve transit in the city? Yes, absolutely but it's not a one or the other type of thing.

Is there a North American car-dependent city that is not facing absolute long-term ruination from the deferred maintenance costs of its road infrastructure?

Like, yes, driving makes the most sense in Winnipeg because all our planning and infrastructure decisions make it the option that makes the most sense.

Right now, Winnipeg spends something like $170M on operating roads, bridges, and underpasses, plus about $390M in capital renewal.

But we're going to see accelerating deterioration of old assets, backlogs of deferred renewal, replacing rather than repairing late-life and undermaintained assets, plus climate stress on old designs.

Even if we had no major additional road network additions (and that's not the plan at all), in ten years from now, we're probably looking (in constant 2025 dollars) at higher operating budgets (maybe $200M/year), and astronomically higher capital renewal budgets (easily $1B a year).

That's true everywhere, and something is going to have to break. Either we let infrastructure get even worse than it is today (hard to imagine), we massively increase taxes and scale back every other type of municipal service, or we start building the city differently.

[Mr Tall Forehead]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

Is there a North American car-dependent city that is not facing absolute long-term ruination from the deferred maintenance costs of its road infrastructure?

Like, yes, driving makes the most sense in Winnipeg because all our planning and infrastructure decisions make it the option that makes the most sense.

Right now, Winnipeg spends something like $170M on operating roads, bridges, and underpasses, plus about $390M in capital renewal.

But we're going to see accelerating deterioration of old assets, backlogs of deferred renewal, replacing rather than repairing late-life and undermaintained assets, plus climate stress on old designs.

Even if we had no major additional road network additions (and that's not the plan at all), in ten years from now, we're probably looking (in constant 2025 dollars) at higher operating budgets (maybe $200M/year), and astronomically higher capital renewal budgets (easily $1B a year).

That's true everywhere, and something is going to have to break. Either we let infrastructure get even worse than it is today (hard to imagine), we massively increase taxes and scale back every other type of municipal service, or we start building the city differently.

Well said. I'll take option 3, please.

[bussche]

Originally Posted by jim_bred

When it comes to commuting private vehicles outnumber transit 8 to 1 in this city, that's not going to change with a dedicated transit lane.

Rapid transit is important and needs attention but it's not a primary focus.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

[optimusREIM]

We need both. We also need to scratch our heads and figure out in a damn hurry why the cost of building infrastructure projects seems to increase at a rate vastly outpacing inflation. How is it that the first leg of the BRT that opened was like $135 mil or something (which included a tunnel under the CP tracks), yet we struggle to keep the cost of a widening of 3km of road under a billion. I understand there are other components, but sheesh.

We should have rinse and repeat design standards for rapid transit that cut back on the amount of reinventing the wheel. Enough with this "made in Manitoba" BS. It's an illusion, and it's costing us a ton of money.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

We need both. We also need to scratch our heads and figure out in a damn hurry why the cost of building infrastructure projects seems to increase at a rate vastly outpacing inflation. How is it that the first leg of the BRT that opened was like $135 mil or something (which included a tunnel under the CP tracks), yet we struggle to keep the cost of a widening of 3km of road under a billion. I understand there are other components, but sheesh.

We should have rinse and repeat design standards for rapid transit that cut back on the amount of reinventing the wheel. Enough with this "made in Manitoba" BS. It's an illusion, and it's costing us a ton of money.

If you want a less complex project to compare, the CPT westward extension to Brookside (Gillingham's 2nd roadway baby) is also estimated in the $750 million range plus ~$150 million in debt servicing if financed. 10 km of greenfield highway construction with two interchanges. So similarly asinine numbers from simpler design, less traffic management, minimal property acquisition, and more minimal utilities involved.

[davequanbury]

Originally Posted by bussche

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Well in the case of car use vs public transit, public transit did, but I'm just being flippant.

[lbnevs]

Originally Posted by davequanbury

Well in the case of car use vs public transit, public transit did, but I'm just being flippant.

RETVRN


(image: winnipegstreetcar.com)

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by lbnevs

RETVRN


(image: winnipegstreetcar.com)

Only half joking when I say its a mistake urbanists didnt take that tone decades ago (RETVRN). Modern conservatives are prone to that kind of branding. Good urbanist design prInciples should have been branded as a return to tradition from a time when cities were better. The whole reject modernity embrace tradition chestnut. With branding like that they mught have started calling suburbs commie plots lol.

[bussche]

Originally Posted by davequanbury

Well in the case of car use vs public transit, public transit did, but I'm just being flippant.

I was referring to the idea that most people commute by car, therefore there's no demand for transit and no reason to spend money on it.

People commute by car because it's currently the best option.

If we gave transit the same resources as we devoted to cars (like having a rapid transit lane as part of the Kenaston), then it would be a better option and more people would use it.

Hence, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Do we wait for more people to use transit before we devote more resources to it, or do we devote more resources to it so that more people will use it?

[davequanbury]

Originally Posted by bussche

I was referring to the idea that most people commute by car, therefore there's no demand for transit and no reason to spend money on it.

People commute by car because it's currently the best option.

If we gave transit the same resources as we devoted to cars (like having a rapid transit lane as part of the Kenaston), then it would be a better option and more people would use it.

Hence, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Do we wait for more people to use transit before we devote more resources to it, or do we devote more resources to it so that more people will use it?

I caught your menaing bussche and I believe the answer to your particular question is that no one who currently drives will switch to transit without investments that prioritize transit at the expense of cars (like a lane dedicated to only 1 in 10 commuters as someone here suggested).

[Peg forever]

And enjoying the (Mostly healthy)debates/opinions about the REAL centre of the country.
I recall reading a stat a few years ago that once a metro area population of 850,000 is achieved, North American cities are compelled to densify and develop efficient transit. Below that size, cars and limited transit service suffice. Beyond that size the road maintenance, cost of servicing land, and land values/prices render further expansion more prohibitive than getting serious about mass transit and building upward, not outward.
Has anyone else seen this figure? Presumably it's a flexible number. Regardless it bodes well for Winnipeg's urban environment, quality of life, and hopefully the skyline.