unhappy Winnipegger

[grumpy old man]

I don't know that Winnipeg NEEDS a freeway system. It is real easy to get around Winnipeg most days. But it would be NICE if we had maybe an inner-ring road freeway... Kenaston, Bishop Grandin, Lagimodiere, Chief Peguis...

[1ajs]

freeways force u to use them o get around making the city less bike friendly and less ped friendly no? we are less a car city then most cities out there...

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

freeways force u to use them o get around making the city less bike friendly and less ped friendly no? we are less a car city then most cities out there...

How are Lagimodiere, Kenaston, McGillvery or Bishop Grandin bike or pedestrian friendly as they are right now?

What difference would it make to remove the at-grade crossings and replace them with interchanges and at least make the roads car friendly?

If anything interchanges might even make the areas adjacent to each other more bike/ped friendly and make it easier for non-car traffic to cross these roads.

I know for myself that I take my bike over Deerfoot using a bike/pedestrian path over an interchange everytime I use the Calgary bike path system along the river.

Don't kid yourself either. Winnipeg is a FAR more car centric city compared to Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary.

[dennis]

Bishop Grandin does have a very nicely done greenway and bike/pedestrian path running along the roadway now. I would consider it bike and pedestrian friendly. Winnipeg is now developing its own system. The old marconi line and the charleswood parkway, plus the Fort Whyte-assiniboine forest-assiniboine park come to mind.

[dennis]

Does anyone know if the seine river has a good bike trail?

[1ajs]

not realy as the sian banks are mostly privitly owned but there is some trails along it best way to see that river is by canoe...

and yea biship is pritty friendly
keniston? witch strech?

lag hmm yea thats not to friendly

wheres mcgilvry again?

[UrbanPlannerr]

Originally Posted by h0twired

Don't kid yourself either. Winnipeg is a FAR more car centric city compared to Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary.

What he said...

[grumpy old man]

Originally Posted by UrbanPlannerr

What he said...

How do we measure such things?

[sledhead35]

not sure how to technically measure it grumpy, but from being in edmonton in late june i would have to strongly agree. take a drive on their soon-to-be-completed outer ring road and you will see endless sprawl. all of which has been developed in the last 10 years. im assuming calgary would be worse since they have had most of the growth lately.

[UrbanPlannerr]

Originally Posted by grumpy old man

How do we measure such things?

I was more so thinking of Vancouver, but for Calgary and Edmonton I really can't actually say, possibly look at use of public transit and how congested roads really are?

freeway system. It is real easy to get around Winnipeg most days. But it would be NICE if we had maybe an inner-ring road freeway... Kenaston, Bishop Grandin, Lagimodiere, Chief Peguis...

Yes, I'm on about the same 'page' as probably all of you, I wouldn't say Winnipeg needs the outer ring to become a freeway or the perimeter, It's just that thing of I wasn't sure how affordable the interchanges really where, and It's more so when everyone else has them, it just makes us seem possibly more poor then everyone else, rather than we are pedestrian/bike enthusiasts (Me actually being one, like anyone else with half a brain I am sure)

[Tarsus]

..Not to be picky here, but I did pixel count analysis of the two built up areas you've shown and you can't quite fit Winnipeg into Calgary 2/1/2 times.

Eyeballing it, yes, it looks like it would, but comparing the raw pixels of the two built up areas, you have ~160,000 for Winnipeg, and ~335,000 for Calgary. Winnipeg actually fits into Calgary slightly more than two times. I'm assuming these two images are taken from google satellite from the same scale.

As far as population comparison (of city population, which looks to be the built up area in the comparison) it's 633,000 for Winnipeg, versus, 1,065,000 for Calgary, which yes is close to 2/3rds closer to 60% actually. In Calgary's built up area, you've also got two massive city parks that total close to 7,000 acres. you take those out of the equation and the difference lessens.


I'm not sure that having the freeways through Calgary has made that much of a difference. Alot of Calgary's sprawl can be attributed to its geography which is very hilly compared to Winnipeg. Because our creeks and rivers go through valleys they tend to eat up alot of space.

Originally Posted by trueviking

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.

[vid]

How auto-centric the city is has nothing to do with the layout and capacity of the roads, and more to do with the trends of the local population and accommodation on those roads for non-automobile uses.

[thegreattait]

I dissagree with your last statement I think geography plays a very large role in how auto centric a city is.

Geography such as mountains on one side and an ocean on the other creates a limited amount of highly desirable land which means high land cost which means more dense living accomodations and work environments.

When you have more dense environments it more readily supports increased mass rapid transit, thus it effects how auto centric a city is.


There are many other factors but geography plays a major role.

Also geology can play a large role as well. Prairie land is easy to build roads on, Rocky mountains are not, thus less roads, less cars.

[UrbanPlannerr]

.