Winnipeg Construction VIII

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by yellowghost

So what are you saying? We should start shaking down companies like Wall-mart to help pay for the infrastructure needed to get customers into it's stores? You know companies like that would only just threaten to scrap plans for new stores or close existing ones...yep. its a win-win.

This isn't a shakedown - it's a negotiation. Considering the city's council currently consists of people too stupid to actually negotiate with corporate executives, they just fold immediately or they shoot themselves in the foot with their overbearing demands; one of the two. There's almost no end to the profitability of a Wal-mart. If they want customers, see how far you can push them before they actually *do* fold their plans. Of course, this has to be done within reason. In negotiation they speak of something called the Zone of Probable Agreement. If you start the negotiations too far outside, you'll poison the whole process. The city has done this here. Instead of negotiating to a point of mutual benefit where the Wal-Mart goes in and becomes a very productive property and business tax payer, the stupid councilors decided it would be better to blow hard with the backing of a few NIMBYs and unreasonably request that the developer start building highways to accommodate their development. This is totally ridiculous and you're right.

But this also doesn't look anything like some condos in a swamp on an as yet unconstructed RT line. The Wal-Mart will absolutely succeed, without a doubt. There's no risk in the public's investment...

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

You're right, that is that point. The difference is that you're suggesting we continue taking the highest risk in exchange for the highest reward, whereas I'm continuously saying Winnipeg isn't a city where you can afford to do that.

You're completely disregarding the economic issues prevalent here. It's not enough to just say 'well, build the stuff and it'll serve future demand - whenever that comes - because it's coming and we need to be prepared'. This is a violation of extremely important axioms of economics, not the least of which is the concept of supply and demand which I don't need to get into here.

For whatever reason, you don't take a housing slowdown as something that should be heeded. You're content to continue building and building as if the RT line's real estate exists in a vacuum and has no broader effect on the market at large and vice versa. Your thinking will have Winnipeg in a deflationary spiral. As inventories increase, prices decrease. Why? Because people have options. Options are expensive things to keep in markets. The Winnipeg housing market already exists on razor thin margins - especially the multi-family market. Any oversupply at all will cause those margins to disappear. And not just because you have hard-assed clients that are going to grind the developer on the price (though that will assuredly happen), the interest, insurance, taxes, and condo fee expenses associated with holding unsold units pile up very quickly and they'll erode your margin faster than some slick talking realtor representing a purchaser ever will. This becomes insidious because, as I had mentioned earlier in the thread, the city's property tax system works on the basis of market valuation lagging two years. If we're oversupplied because we're trying to engineer demand the market tells us doesn't exist, we'll have a rapid transit line in a field of either unsold or unconstructed units on land we've already serviced that isn't producing tax revenue at nearly the rate it was projected to. This isn't a trivial matter in your argument above - you're suggesting that the line representing infrastructure (public investment) lines up closer to private investment the denser we go. That's a true point, but only if today's values increase in perpetuity (Stevenson is using a growth rate so they're not expecting any decrease or even a stabilizing of property values), and we're actually able to occupy all the units that are projected to be built. Something that's probably unlikely considering every developer knows you never achieve maximum density.

None of this makes mention of the effects of pulling demand forward. We have a relatively stable unemployment rate around here - though it's moving up slightly. 12% of our economy is construction. Just plain construction. That does not include construction related. Construction related is probably closer to 20-25% which is how the US lines up. Since you're an architect, you'd be construction related. I'm construction related. Every engineer who isn't under the desk of a few city bureaucrats is constructed related. If we start stuffing supply channels because we're short-sighted about the benefits of development, we'll all be out of work. It'll be like the 90s all over again. And those immigrants we're expecting to fill the void? They won't be interested in coming to an economy that is already lagging the rest of the country with only 2% Y/Y growth.

The point about the Lettellier configuration is that it just simply doesn't matter how the city ends up developing over time - you already have a tax base, adequate infrastructure and access to ridership in relatively densely populated mature neighbourhoods. As time goes on, and demand calls for it - if it calls for it - you have an entire Pembina corridor that's almost exclusively zoned C2 already that would very easily accommodate mixed-use multi-family development on a conditional use basis.

And I know what your argument will be - developers are doing it so there must be a reason. The reason is that developers aren't unlike humans anywhere else. In fact, in Winnipeg, as far as oracles of the market go, Winnipeg's developers are mostly pretty unsophisticated. They've been working on these projects for years. They're as prone to the sunk cost fallacy as anybody. But they also see that they're not the only ones in line to pay the freight, so they can stand there a little longer than the average guy...

I believe it is a risk worth taking....simple as that....its a long term decision and can not be based on micro scale fluctuations in building trends...the long term trend has been toward greater multi-family housing construction and to be sustainable in the future the City MUST promote this type of growth....the far greater risk to me is NOT pushing higher density development in a big way...we will certainly all pay that price.

this is one time the City has actually considered the consequences of growth in my opinion....it may take longer to happen (or maybe not) but I see it as having as much potential for success as hoping a myriad of small scale land owners build high density residential buildings around each station....Pembina highway, specifically from Jubilee to the U of M is in no way a densely populated mature neighbourhood corridor as you say...not even close....that is precisely the issue....its very low density....the walkable population around each node would not be anywhere near what it would take to have an effect on modal shift in any substantive way....

rapid transit's greatest influence is transit oriented development....this commonly happens in greenfield sites....to work it requires walkable, high density mixed use communities to support it....that does not exist on Pembina and I believe that when compared to the likelihood of these new developments creating that growth, the risk is just as significant or even greater that it will happen piece meal along Pembina.

[WestEndWander]

l

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Nah, never heard of it.

http://marketurbanism.com/

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I believe it is a risk worth taking....simple as that....its a long term decision and can not be based on micro scale fluctuations in building trends...the long term trend has been toward greater multi-family housing construction and to be sustainable in the future the City MUST promote this type of growth....the far greater risk to me is NOT pushing higher density development in a big way...we will certainly all pay that price.

this is one time the City has actually considered the consequences of growth in my opinion....it may take longer to happen (or maybe not) but I see it as having as much potential for success as hoping a myriad of small scale land owners build high density residential buildings around each station....Pembina highway, specifically from Jubilee to the U of M is in no way a densely populated mature neighbourhood corridor as you say...not even close....that is precisely the issue....its very low density....the walkable population around each node would not be anywhere near what it would take to have an effect on modal shift in any substantive way....

rapid transit's greatest influence is transit oriented development....this commonly happens in greenfield sites....to work it requires walkable, high density mixed use communities to support it....that does not exist on Pembina and I believe that when compared to the likelihood of these new developments creating that growth, the risk is just as significant or even greater that it will happen piece meal along Pembina.

We're just not going to agree here. I've given you a laundry list of hard facts and figures about the province of Manitoba. I've tried to give you an idea about how markets work, especially Manitoba's. You point to slow markets as if they're the aberration in Manitoba's history; they aren't. They're the norm. What we've been seeing is the aberration. If you want to continue to ignore the facts about the city and the province, that's fine, but don't continue to buttress your arguments with anecdotal evidence about what a textbook once taught you about Transit Oriented Development in cities that don't share even a single commonality with Winnipeg or the province of Manitoba.

Here's your opportunity to show everybody a factually accurate, similar case scenario where a city of 700,000 people that exists in almost total isolation from the rest of the country in a province that has almost no viable resource base suddenly, and counter to over a hundred years of history, evolves at a rapid and heretofore unprecedented pace to become a relatively thriving metropolis. I'm all ears.

And then from there, I want to see an actual growth model that accounts for risk and future public and private development. It's not enough just to show examples of poorly executed, but of course, publicly funded mega-projects that politicians get to cut ribbons for - we have plenty of those. I want actual examples that reflect a positive net present value and where a positive multiplier effect is evident.

This isn't just a rapid transit line, it's an investment. It costs money. It requires risk analysis. It's easy to continue to parrot lines about how the city needs it, but you don't have enough grasp on the economics of things to be saying one way or another. The loudest proponents are also the most invested; they aren't interested in showing you the best investment for the public - they're interested in showing you which is the best for them. And the best investment does not always mean the one that returns the most. It means the one that returns the most while mitigating the most risk.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by biguc

http://marketurbanism.com/

This site looks great. Thanks for the link

[trueviking]

Its pretty funny, simplicity....everything you post on this site is filtered through your undying belief that the 1990's boogeyman lives under your bed and you are afraid to put your feet on the ground because you think it will lash out and grab your ankles....all other views are just uneducated boosterism.

Your whole argument is so 1996....this belief that no other city is anything like Winnipeg, everything that has found proven success in every city across the world cant possibly work here because it is after all, an impoverished backwater....times have changed...its time to move on.

It is far more costly to not respond to Winnipeg's unsustainable growth patterns....its just a chance that we have to take....Winnipeg's economic and population growth has been just fine over the last decade...both above the national average...not a single forecast has that changing anytime soon....and even if it was, it is irresponsible to not at least try and change development patterns in the city.

I love when people try the you just have 'book learnin' argument....it 'aint like that in the 'real world, son'....so funny.

You make my point exactly...this is a big investment and it needs to be made carefully to ensure success....if you believe that the only measure for that success is tax dollars being recouped then you should be in favour of the dogleg....it is the only way enough growth will happen to pay it back....research how TOD works.....Pembina Highway does not present the conditions for high density regeneration...it simply wont happen...I agree about your risk analysis....in my opinion the risk is not hoping to spawn greenfield development on a large scale....that is the only way to create substantive modal shift and in turn reap the benefits of the investment.

Your argument seems to be flawed...you claim that you are opposed to the hope that large scale development will repay the investment, Winnipeg doesnt grow quickly enough for you....yet you believe that the Pembina alignment would create enough development in this slow moving backwater to justify investment...which is it?...does Winnipeg have the growth potential to pay it back or not?....there is inconsistency with your argument.

Who has ever said that transit will make Winnipeg 'evolve at a rapid and heretofore unprecedented pace to become a relatively thriving metropolis'....I have stated many times this is a long term project....the fact that 6 developments are on the books right now is a good sign but if it takes longer that is fine with me.....just because change happens slowly in Winnipeg doesn't mean it isn't worth promoting that change....if we don't start now it will never happen...is your response that Winnipeg was a slow growing city 15 years ago so we should never make public investment to direct growth?


Since we are challenging each other, I would ask you to find me an example where a city of around a million built rapid transit and it was a failure.....please...I'm all ears as well.

I don't see how our economic conditions, urban structure or population base is all that different than Ottawa's.....highly successful TOD's there...and a recent commitment to spend 3 billion dollars in the next 10 years on rapid transit.....in the big picture, how are we so completely different?...they see that as a positive development but in Winnipeg even a small scale version of that is destined to fail.....why?...is Ottawa that much more of a 'thriving metropolis growing at a rapid pace'?

Your woe is me, winnipeg is too shitty to consider progressive ideas, is old school....stop being locked in paralysis of fear....development will continue to happen, the city will continue to grow...and it will happen along the transit line...like it or not.

and really, whats the worst that could happen?....do you really think relocating 3 of the 12 stations planned for the line off of Pembina Highway will make or break its success?...its hardly a deal breaker and the opportunity to create something great is very real.....I've evaluated the risk and it is worth it....Winnipeg needs change...the 90's are 15 years ago.....time to move on.

oh, and thanks for teaching me how the economy works....I got it now.

[DancingDuck]

City of Winnipeg had info regarding downtown/riverbank planning committee in the FP today. I can't link to it from my phone, but it suggested (among other things):
-minimum building heights
-new guidelines for parking lots
-knowing what developers will do with sites after they demolish a building
While these are only suggestions, it seems the city is moving in the right direction...

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by trueviking

it is not uncommon to locate these nodes in greenfield sites as they provide the most opportunity for large scale TOD development....Pembina is fully developed, the land around each station would certainly rise in value but it would not have the same large scale impact....its not a streetcar system....we could hope that the land values increased enough to affect redevelopment in a piecemeal fashion, that would one day result in the density, but that isn't the only way.

I disagree that it wouldn't have the same large scale impact as sending the line to greenfields to be developed. If anything I think it would be better. Why? Because it's how everything has ever came to be. Master Planned areas -- and I won't even go into how non transit-oriented the plans I have seen coming from the City are -- is (in the context of City Building) a new science, and has barely gone through one whole neighbourhood lifecycle. On the other hand, incremental development has been the way things have worked since the start of cities, and it works.

And again, I don't have to look very far to see that incremental additions to already substantially mature neighbourhoods is a much better investment then large master planned neighbourhoods in greenfield. Just look at Corydon Village, Osborne Village, the Exchange District vs. the "pedestrian village" that is Bridg(e)water South. I would rather see intensification along Pembina, even if it takes 20 years, than to have another piece of crap neighbourhood like that. And, not to be insulting but, don't fool yourself to think that this master planned greenfield is going to be anything close to good.

Originally Posted by trueviking

You make my point exactly...this is a big investment and it needs to be made carefully to ensure success....if you believe that the only measure for that success is tax dollars being recouped then you should be in favour of the dogleg....it is the only way enough growth will happen to pay it back.

I know you weren't talking to me about this, but the other problem with this is that you aren't including the other liabilities and investments that will be needed by the City to make this greenfield work. You are just looking at tax dollars in... What about all the other amenities that will be required for this new "high density" neighbourhood? You should look at tax dollars in and tax dollars out.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Its pretty funny, simplicity....everything you post on this site is filtered through your undying belief that the 1990's boogeyman lives under your bed and you are afraid to put your feet on the ground because you think it will lash out and grab your ankles....all other views are just uneducated boosterism.

Your whole argument is so 1996....this belief that no other city is anything like Winnipeg, everything that has found proven success in every city across the world cant possibly work here because it is after all, an impoverished backwater....times have changed...its time to move on.

It is far more costly to not respond to Winnipeg's unsustainable growth patterns....its just a chance that we have to take....Winnipeg's economic and population growth has been just fine over the last decade...both above the national average...not a single forecast has that changing anytime soon....and even if it was, it is irresponsible to not at least try and change development patterns in the city.

I love when people try the you just have 'book learnin' argument....it 'aint like that in the 'real world, son'....so funny.

You make my point exactly...this is a big investment and it needs to be made carefully to ensure success....if you believe that the only measure for that success is tax dollars being recouped then you should be in favour of the dogleg....it is the only way enough growth will happen to pay it back....research how TOD works.....Pembina Highway does not present the conditions for high density regeneration...it simply wont happen...I agree about your risk analysis....in my opinion the risk is not hoping to spawn greenfield development on a large scale....that is the only way to create substantive modal shift and in turn reap the benefits of the investment.

Your argument seems to be flawed...you claim that you are opposed to the hope that large scale development will repay the investment, Winnipeg doesnt grow quickly enough for you....yet you believe that the Pembina alignment would create enough development in this slow moving backwater to justify investment...which is it?...does Winnipeg have the growth potential to pay it back or not?....there is inconsistency with your argument.

Who has ever said that transit will make Winnipeg 'evolve at a rapid and heretofore unprecedented pace to become a relatively thriving metropolis'....I have stated many times this is a long term project....the fact that 6 developments are on the books right now is a good sign but if it takes longer that is fine with me.....just because change happens slowly in Winnipeg doesn't mean it isn't worth promoting that change....if we don't start now it will never happen...is your response that Winnipeg was a slow growing city 15 years ago so we should never make public investment to direct growth?


Since we are challenging each other, I would ask you to find me an example where a city of around a million built rapid transit and it was a failure.....please...I'm all ears as well.

I don't see how our economic conditions, urban structure or population base is all that different than Ottawa's.....highly successful TOD's there...and a recent commitment to spend 3 billion dollars in the next 10 years on rapid transit.....in the big picture, how are we so completely different?...they see that as a positive development but in Winnipeg even a small scale version of that is destined to fail.....why?...is Ottawa that much more of a 'thriving metropolis growing at a rapid pace'?

Your woe is me, winnipeg is too shitty to consider progressive ideas, is old school....stop being locked in paralysis of fear....development will continue to happen, the city will continue to grow...and it will happen along the transit line...like it or not.

and really, whats the worst that could happen?....do you really think relocating 3 of the 12 stations planned for the line off of Pembina Highway will make or break its success?...its hardly a deal breaker and the opportunity to create something great is very real.....I've evaluated the risk and it is worth it....Winnipeg needs change...the 90's are 15 years ago.....time to move on.

oh, and thanks for teaching me how the economy works....I got it now.

Here we go again. I'm going to respond to this in a different way this time:

Anecdotal

Your whole argument is so 1996....this belief that no other city is anything like Winnipeg, everything that has found proven success in every city across the world cant possibly work here because it is after all, an impoverished backwater....times have changed...its time to move on

Manitoba - and specifically Winnipeg - is propped up by low interest rates and the success of other provinces. On a per capita basis, we receive more federal equalization payments than any other province except the hotbed of industry known as Prince Edward Island. Nothing has changed except what you had mentioned earlier - uneducated boosterism.

It is far more costly to not respond to Winnipeg's unsustainable growth patterns

This is only true if you don't create a larger financial gap by expending more money unwisely and haphazardly. Especially if you're doing it on hope alone.

Winnipeg's economic and population growth has been just fine over the last decade...both above the national average...not a single forecast has that changing anytime soon....and even if it was, it is irresponsible to not at least try and change development patterns in the city.

This is wrong. Population growth in this province (be it Winnipeg or otherwise is irrelevant with Winnipeg seeing the lion's share of migration to Manitoba) is actually below the Canadian average of 1.2%. And projections for the province also show below average growth as our natural growth continues to go even further into negative territory. Also worth noting is our percentage of Aboriginal population contributing to our growth. We're by far the city with the highest percentage of Aboriginal population. I have hope for the community in the long-term, but their leadership can't even agree upon an education strategy right now, so this won't be a positively contributing economic group for at least another generation. This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the economic facts of the group.

Also, what kind of hedge is "and even if I'm wrong, don't we owe it to the tax payers to blow their money in ways we can't understand the consequences of?". No. No, we don't use that kind of logic to underwrite multimillion dollar infrastructure projects that use borrowed money.

I love when people try the you just have 'book learnin' argument....it 'aint like that in the 'real world, son'....so funny.

This is a meaningless comment made to distract the reader from the fact that you still haven't made an actual argument.

if you believe that the only measure for that success is tax dollars being recouped then you should be in favour of the dogleg....it is the only way enough growth will happen to pay it back....research how TOD works.....Pembina Highway does not present the conditions for high density regeneration...it simply wont happen

Hmmm, maybe I'll look into this...

do you really think relocating 3 of the 12 stations planned for the line off of Pembina Highway will make or break its success?

Oh! Nevermind; there's obviously no point.

The point is that we're servicing a single developer's project and dragging the entire concept into the realm of insanity to justify it. Just like you tried to do above when calling it both integral and meaningless all in the same comment. If it's so successful when it happens, build a spur line that can be easily justified by all the success.

Your argument seems to be flawed...you claim that you are opposed to the hope that large scale development will repay the investment, Winnipeg doesnt grow quickly enough for you....yet you believe that the Pembina alignment would create enough development in this slow moving backwater to justify investment...which is it?...does Winnipeg have the growth potential to pay it back or not?....there is inconsistency with your argument.

There's no dithering in my argument. I'm saying that the risk reward scenario plays out better over the long-term with slow infill development because that's a more likely scenario given all the things you'd prefer to believe weren't happening, which is that Manitoba - specifically Winnipeg - is already experiencing a slowdown with projections to continue growing at below average rates relative to the rest of the country. Since this is also a federal investment, I prefer to look at not just where my property taxes go, but where my federal and provincial taxes go. Since they're coming back here in the form of transfer payments, I'd prefer to know they weren't just being lit on fire.

just because change happens slowly in Winnipeg doesn't mean it isn't worth promoting that change....if we don't start now it will never happen...is your response that Winnipeg was a slow growing city 15 years ago so we should never make public investment to direct growth?

I'm not addressing this again. It's a demonstrably poor investment with too much risk. Every investment needs a proper growth rate to justify itself. We don't have that rate here. We'd be out on a limb with the Letellier configuration, let alone one that requires a growth rate we've never, and will never see.

Insane

Since we are challenging each other, I would ask you to find me an example where a city of around a million built rapid transit and it was a failure.....please...I'm all ears as well.

I would ask you to find me a city in Manitoba that has close to a million people.

I don't see how our economic conditions, urban structure or population base is all that different than Ottawa's.....highly successful TOD's there...and a recent commitment to spend 3 billion dollars in the next 10 years on rapid transit.....in the big picture, how are we so completely different?...they see that as a positive development but in Winnipeg even a small scale version of that is destined to fail.....why?...is Ottawa that much more of a 'thriving metropolis growing at a rapid pace'?

Really man? Ottawa is the nation's capital. Winnipeg and Ottawa couldn't be further from each other on the spectrum. Of course Ottawa gets nice things undeservedly and without thought for investment. It hosts world leaders and the countries most influential members on a daily basis. There happens to be a whole lot of lobbying power in that city, in case you haven't noticed. I can't even believe you would hold Ottawa up as any sort of comparative case. You can't possibly be that naive to how politics works.

I've evaluated the risk and it is worth it....

Well, then. It's difficult to argue with a few wrong facts and some other palaver rooted in... I actually don't even know anymore.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by DancingDuck

-knowing what developers will do with sites after they demolish a building
While these are only suggestions, it seems the city is moving in the right direction...

The city has always had the ability to require a redevelopment plan in order to grant a demolition permit, they've just continued to allow "nothing" as a solid redevelopment alternative that needs to be seeded or sodded within two years...

[cheswick]

Edit: covered elsewhere

[bomberjet]

Precinct I plan for Transcona North. Your typical low density burb. With industrial between the houses and Griffin Steel. Chief Peguis Extension right of way and future PTH 101 interchange are also noted as being along Gunn Road with additional right of way noted along the south side of the existing.

Public Hearing 10
http://www.winnipeg.ca/CLKDMIS/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=13510&SectionId=&InitUrl=

[esquire]

I hear that St. John Ambulance is planning to replace their mishmash of buildings south of Polo Park with a new building. That normally wouldn't be cause for excitement, but SJA really did a great job a decade ago when they built this new office in Edmonton (it was the city's first LEED silver building):



Ours will apparently be only 2 storeys instead of 3, but there is still a lot of potential for something nice to go up.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Precinct I plan for Transcona North. Your typical low density burb. With industrial between the houses and Griffin Steel. Chief Peguis Extension right of way and future PTH 101 interchange are also noted as being along Gunn Road with additional right of way noted along the south side of the existing.

Public Hearing 10
http://www.winnipeg.ca/CLKDMIS/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=13510&SectionId=&InitUrl=

I really wish that their are atleast multiple areas for multi family housing instead of one small corner

[biguc]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

I disagree that it wouldn't have the same large scale impact as sending the line to greenfields to be developed. If anything I think it would be better. Why? Because it's how everything has ever came to be. Master Planned areas -- and I won't even go into how non transit-oriented the plans I have seen coming from the City are -- is (in the context of City Building) a new science, and has barely gone through one whole neighbourhood lifecycle. On the other hand, incremental development has been the way things have worked since the start of cities, and it works.

And again, I don't have to look very far to see that incremental additions to already substantially mature neighbourhoods is a much better investment then large master planned neighbourhoods in greenfield. Just look at Corydon Village, Osborne Village, the Exchange District vs. the "pedestrian village" that is Bridg(e)water South. I would rather see intensification along Pembina, even if it takes 20 years, than to have another piece of crap neighbourhood like that. And, not to be insulting but, don't fool yourself to think that this master planned greenfield is going to be anything close to good.



I know you weren't talking to me about this, but the other problem with this is that you aren't including the other liabilities and investments that will be needed by the City to make this greenfield work. You are just looking at tax dollars in... What about all the other amenities that will be required for this new "high density" neighbourhood? You should look at tax dollars in and tax dollars out.

Much of the current city was built as streetcar suburbs. All this barking about the viability of large, master-planned developments ignores that we can have gradual, incremental development that is also oriented towards transit. Even if it is greenfield development.

Simplicity, you've made the point that current growth rates are abnormal. I don't know what time-frame you base that on, and looking at Winnipeg's growth since its inception, today's growth seems pretty typical--we're experiencing growth similar to what we saw in the 70s and 80s: no gangbusters boomtown growth like it's 1910, but not the stagnation of the 90s and early 00s either. For all you know about smaller developments, will you let anyone watch you wipe the egg off your face if some of these larger developments you're so sure will fail do succeed?

In any case, I'm sure we all agree the city needs to get its ducks in a row as far as ending subsidies to sprawl and relaxing zoning to really capitalize on the benefits of rapid transit. Hell, we'd get great bang for zero buck off ending subsidies and upzoning alone--we've already seen some significant intensification in established areas without either.

And rapid transit to the U of M is long overdue for its own sake. Hell, I think a grade-separated line from Osborne to HSC and RRC's Notre Dame campus is almost necessary to keep transportation to the north west side of the city functioning. Give the city the freedom to grow within itself, and investing in transit where traffic warrants it will work out. Whether Winnipeg grows fast or slow is irrelevant in this respect--it's at a tipping point where it will not function without some kind of investment. Unfortunately, this city made the choice, like to many other cities, to make these investments entirely public, and made some really stupid investments along the way. We're stuck in a place where we can make the city work or not. Choose your poison.

I mean, we could just sell off regional streets and let private companies run them. The technology is there: GPS in cars could track kilometers driven and road owners could charge drivers according to km/kg driven. That would establish a fair market for the kind of private investment in transit this city once enjoyed. Then we'd get just the right amount of investment for incremental growth and our city would be better for it.

But that's too radical for the left and puts the lie to every conservative in the world. Funny stuff.

[Reignman]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Precinct I plan for Transcona North. Your typical low density burb. With industrial between the houses and Griffin Steel. Chief Peguis Extension right of way and future PTH 101 interchange are also noted as being along Gunn Road with additional right of way noted along the south side of the existing.

Public Hearing 10
http://www.winnipeg.ca/CLKDMIS/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=13510&SectionId=&InitUrl=

Bomberjet : are you saying the future extension of CPT will connect with Gunn with interchange at Gunn/101?

[Biff]

^^^the province has preliminary plans to build a 4 lane divided hwy from Oakbank and connect to Gunn Rd at this point. I believe this is why CPT is supposed to extend to the Perimeter here.

[Reignman]

Originally Posted by Biff

^^^the province has preliminary plans to build a 4 lane divided hwy from Oakbank and connect to Gunn Rd at this point. I believe this is why CPT is supposed to extend to the Perimeter here.

My assumption was that the CPT connection to 101 east (and planned Oakbank corridor) would be further north on 101...but the use of Gunn makes complete sense...one less perimeter intersection. Good stuff.

I imagine CPT will link up with Gunn around the current Day/Gunn intersection. I hope the plan would be to cut off the western portion of Gunn from Day to Plessis from the CPT/Gunn route..

[cllew]

Originally Posted by Biff

^^^the province has preliminary plans to build a 4 lane divided hwy from Oakbank and connect to Gunn Rd at this point. I believe this is why CPT is supposed to extend to the Perimeter here.

So that would mean another bridge over the floodway? I thought they had it hydraulic optimized for max flow with the existing bridge piers.