Winnipeg | Portage and Main

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by wardlow

Whatever merits this idea does or does not have, it's a little surprising and disappointing Vote Open is running with this as it completely obliterates what have been its two biggest messages so far: 'Opening P&M will hardly cost a thing' and 'Opening P&M will hardly have an impact on traffic movement.' It gives up on the idea that opening Portage and Main is a thing that can happen on its own, without a costly solution. Now apparently it does: a kilometre-long transit mall that will turn the West Exchange into a glorified bus loop.

I guess the only way you can get anywhere in Winnipeg is pitch a cool-looking physical project and hope it catches. You can't just open an intersection because it's the right thing to do, you need to throw in world class transit malls and lazer pyramids and world-class farmers markets and scrambled crossings. Maybe just open the damn thing and leave the big schemes for another day.

I agree with this completely. I do find the idea of a transit mall along Fort innovative and intriguing, but for Team Open to co-opt this curve ball a week before people go to the polls is mind-boggling. No engineering study, no cost estimate, no thought to the logistical challenges.

It seems like some people think you can just paint a yellow line down the middle of Fort and call it a day. Obviously the cost of something like this would be immense. Brand new traffic signals at about 15 intersections (converting 1-ways to 2-ways), including major reconstruction on some due to currently restricted movements, like at William and Main. Rerouting and re-doing the schedules of the 25-plus bus routes that currently use Main Street. Redoing signage along the entire stretch.

I'm also surprised that there didn't seem to be any mention of the proposed and often discussed north-south transit corridor 150 metres to the east, along the highline. Wasn't Union Station to be a sort of hub in that eventual scenario?

[trueviking]

One thing I’ve learned in this process is that people don’t give a sh*t about facts or details. The logistics of how it would work is irrelevant to 99% of the population.

For sure this idea is half baked but I think the point was to show that there are options besides A or B. And to be honest the leadership probably should have been looking at these kinds of things.

Cost is irrelevant to this entire discussion. Anyone who uses it is just looking for backup to traffic fears. In a battle to win minds that care little about facts, this kind of message has traction. Nobody is calculating the cost of new transit signals. It’s irrelevant to most. It changes the dialogue from the mud of details and puts yes on the same side as no. People are against it because they feel traffic is bad and they don’t want it to be worse. This says to them. We agree traffic is bad, and here’s an idea to fix that. And by the way it could help aleviate your fears about pedestrians. It reframes the question to ‘what are the possibilities’. Maybe it’s a rapid transit train station. Maybe it’s a Fort Street transit mall. Who knows. But the dialogue needed to be changed. Not to the type of people on this forum, but to those who couldn’t tell you where Fort Street is. Which is the majority of voters who are deciding about Portage and Main.

[BigG]

^^^Good post.

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by trueviking

One thing I’ve learned in this process is that people don’t give a sh*t about facts or details. The logistics of how it would work is irrelevant to 99% of the population.

Exactly. If facts mattered to people, they would be voting overwhelmingly to open the intersection. Instead, the majority of people appear to have capitulated to the outright lies (the cost argument), hysteria (carmageddon), and logical fallacies (no one walks there and yet it will be a pedestrian bloodbath) of the 'no' proponents.

[esquire]

^ I actually like the idea of a transit mall on its own merits. I think it could really help turn Fort from a bit of a wasteland into a nice, walkable street, especially if pedestrian counts encourage businesses and developers to take a closer look.

Of course, it actually has to work from a transit point of view. But if it does, then it could build on the positives of opening P&M to pedestrians to really improve the pedestrian experience in that area.

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by trueviking

One thing I’ve learned in this process is that people don’t give a sh*t about facts or details. The logistics of how it would work is irrelevant to 99% of the population.

For sure this idea is half baked but I think the point was to show that there are options besides A or B. And to be honest the leadership probably should have been looking at these kinds of things.

Cost is irrelevant to this entire discussion. Anyone who uses it is just looking for backup to traffic fears. In a battle to win minds that care little about facts, this kind of message has traction. Nobody is calculating the cost of new transit signals. It’s irrelevant to most. It changes the dialogue from the mud of details and puts yes on the same side as no. People are against it because they feel traffic is bad and they don’t want it to be worse. This says to them. We agree traffic is bad, and here’s an idea to fix that. And by the way it could help aleviate your fears about pedestrians. It reframes the question to ‘what are the possibilities’. Maybe it’s a rapid transit train station. Maybe it’s a Fort Street transit mall. Who knows. But the dialogue needed to be changed. Not to the type of people on this forum, but to those who couldn’t tell you where Fort Street is. Which is the majority of voters who are deciding about Portage and Main.

Sorry, but this is a poor compromise. Vote Open had the results of the Dillon study to back up a solid standalone argument that streets should be accessible. This came at a time when the real estate agreement is expiring, the barricades need major repairs, there's a mayor who likes the idea, and there's a farcical plebiscite about it. Now is the time to be precise and strategic. Not so much to win the plebiscite, but to keep the issue clear and on-message for the next four years.

But then Vote Open threw that away in the desperate hope it would allay what you rightly call unfounded fears.

An open Portage and Main is an issue that ties to so many other downtown issues, but as a good idea it stood on its own. What Vote Open did this week was anchor the issue to *some kind* of traffic "solution" to the problem that opening the intersection will cause. They made a big issue out of what the Dillon study said wasn't a big issue.

You're right this transit mall is conceptual and half-baked (which is why I'm not bothering to comment on how terrible it would be for the Exchange District and for Transit riders), but now the Portage and Main issue is not just about making an intersection accessible, but about fixing downtown's traffic problems.

So when a new Council discusses this issue, the pro-open side will be the ones who agreed with the unfounded public sentiment that an open Portage and Main is a big problem... but also that needs a costly solution. I can hear yes-leaning councillors now: "I agree Portage and Main should be open, but there needs to be a plan in place. So let's wait for the results of a transitway study... let's wait for public consultation... let's wait until there's money in the capital budget for dedicated bus lanes..." Then the no-leaning councillors: "I'm against this big costly waste of money. Sync the lights more and leave it at that."

I don't want to spend another 40 years at design charrettes asking "what are the possibilities?" I just want to cross the street.

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by wardlow

But then Vote Open threw that away in the desperate hope it would allay what you rightly call unfounded fears.

I think that what has happened as Vote Open has realized that the people of Winnipeg are idiots and that there is no point in being logical by trying to pull people out of their delusion. Brodbeck wrote a column where he called the Vote Open side arrogant but did not present one substantive argument against opening (because there are none). Apparently we aren't supposed to call out people who completely ignore facts anymore.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by TimeFadesAway

I think that what has happened as Vote Open has realized that the people of Winnipeg are idiots and that there is no point in being logical by trying to pull people out of their delusion. Brodbeck wrote a column where he called the Vote Open side arrogant but did not present one substantive argument against opening (because there are none). Apparently we aren't supposed to call out people who completely ignore facts anymore.

The only "fact" that matters to a guy like Brodbeck is that anyone who wants to spend money on anything that doesn't directly benefit drivers is an out of touch elite snob, or whatever the insult du jour happens to be.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

The only "fact" that matters to a guy like Brodbeck is that anyone who wants to spend money on anything that doesn't directly benefit drivers is an out of touch elite snob, or whatever the insult du jour happens to be.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that this insult is pretty relevant and apropos in a lot of cases but Portage and Main should have nothing to do with elites vs non elites. This is about taking action that should not have been necessary to begin with and to facilitate the revitalization of a third of the core. In this case I do agree that brodbeck is being a bit of a c*nt

[Jammon]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that this insult is pretty relevant and apropos in a lot of cases but Portage and Main should have nothing to do with elites vs non elites. This is about taking action that should not have been necessary to begin with and to facilitate the revitalization of a third of the core. In this case I do agree that brodbeck is being a bit of a c*nt

I think there's a way to challenge people's opinions without coming off as elitist. I have to admit, I find that some of the people on this forum come off this way- especially surrounding the whole P+M debate. At times, I have found some of the posters to be downright condescending, so I am not entirely against Brodbeck's opinion.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

Originally Posted by Jammon

Brodbeck

I quit reading his column years ago. They always have the same spin. It's tiresome as you always know what the content will be before you've read it.

[Jammon]

Originally Posted by OTA in Winnipeg

I quit reading his column years ago. They always have the same spin. It's tiresome as you always know what the content will be before you've read it.

I think he has a valid point though. It's easy to dismiss it, but the reality is that as a writer, he has the forum to influence people and voters. And if those people are influenced, whether you like his writing or not, it is going to have an impact on how people see the P+M debate. I've said this before: this forum is a very well-educated group of people who are primarily in the field or engineering/architecture/development. Most of you get it. The problem for me is that if you come off as having all the answers, people may be put off by the approach. I'm just saying as poster who doesn't work in this field- I have been put off by some people's attitudes and lack of objectivity and willingness to see another's POV.

[Ando]

One of the most ridiculous comments I have heard so far is that the PandM opening is being driven by so-called "elitists". Brodeck is just as much an elitist as anybody sitting up in his perch meting out is Fox News style pap every day.

[bomberjet]

Right, the elitists who are letting people cross the street. Is it some form of diversionary tactic where they are pulling other strings behind the scenes?

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Right, the elitists who are letting people cross the street. Is it some form of diversionary tactic where they are pulling other strings behind the scenes?

It is ridiculous. I know owning a car doesn't mean you're rolling in piles of money but it does imply a certain amount of at least middle-class privilege. Walking is for everybody and is much more popular among lower-income people who can't afford cars. Brodbeck's take is completely back-asswards but that's not unusual.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Jammon

I think he has a valid point though. It's easy to dismiss it, but the reality is that as a writer, he has the forum to influence people and voters. And if those people are influenced, whether you like his writing or not, it is going to have an impact on how people see the P+M debate. I've said this before: this forum is a very well-educated group of people who are primarily in the field or engineering/architecture/development. Most of you get it. The problem for me is that if you come off as having all the answers, people may be put off by the approach. I'm just saying as poster who doesn't work in this field- I have been put off by some people's attitudes and lack of objectivity and willingness to see another's POV.

^This. Just reading some of the back on forth on Twitter, and even some of the commentary on this board, the condescending tone is becoming deafening. I mean, just a few posts back, a forumer remarked that "Vote Open has realized that the people of Winnipeg are idiots and that there is no point in being logical by trying to pull people out of their delusion". People who are voting no or on the fence are "idiots" and "delusional". Uneducated. Selfish suburbanites. Anti-human rights.

Unfortunately, when you bring up the perception that "Team Open" is arrogant or condescending, the response seems to be "I haven't seen that attitude at all from our campaign" or "well, we're right, we have the facts".

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Ando

One of the most ridiculous comments I have heard so far is that the PandM opening is being driven by so-called "elitists". Brodeck is just as much an elitist as anybody sitting up in his perch meting out is Fox News style pap every day.

At one time, Brodbeck was a proponent of naming and shaming people who were convicted of DUI.....until he was caught over the limit.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by Bdog

^This. Just reading some of the back on forth on Twitter, and even some of the commentary on this board, the condescending tone is becoming deafening. I mean, just a few posts back, a forumer remarked that "Vote Open has realized that the people of Winnipeg are idiots and that there is no point in being logical by trying to pull people out of their delusion". People who are voting no or on the fence are "idiots" and "delusional". Uneducated. Selfish suburbanites. Anti-human rights.

Unfortunately, when you bring up the perception that "Team Open" is arrogant or condescending, the response seems to be "I haven't seen that attitude at all from our campaign" or "well, we're right, we have the facts".

Are you concerned about facts or are you concerned about perceived elitism or arrogance? Brodbeck says they downfall of the Pro-open crowd will be their arrogance. So this isn't about whether something makes sense or not, but rather whether you like the other person's attitude? There is certainly arrogance on both sides, so does it cancel out?

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by Bdog

^This. Just reading some of the back on forth on Twitter, and even some of the commentary on this board, the condescending tone is becoming deafening. I mean, just a few posts back, a forumer remarked that "Vote Open has realized that the people of Winnipeg are idiots and that there is no point in being logical by trying to pull people out of their delusion". People who are voting no or on the fence are "idiots" and "delusional". Uneducated. Selfish suburbanites. Anti-human rights.

Unfortunately, when you bring up the perception that "Team Open" is arrogant or condescending, the response seems to be "I haven't seen that attitude at all from our campaign" or "well, we're right, we have the facts".

Look, the Open side has been trying since day 1 to show how this is good for the city. The Closed side has been in the same boat as climate change deniers in that they simply refuse to question their own preconceptions no matter how much information they're given. They call "fake news" on anything that doesn't jive with their "gut" feeling and have fully embraced the whole anti-intellectual thing, refusing to accept anything that doesn't support their own predetermined conclusions and suggesting that anyone who wants it open is some "elite" pursuing some nefarious elitist agenda. If you ask me, that's pretty arrogant. You can only stay respectful for so long before you have to face the blunt truth that these folks are not critical thinkers. That's the most respectful way I can phrase it.

[bomberjet]

I would say the arrogance of the closed side is just as high. They don't care about numbers, except the number of seconds their car will be delayed. It's just flat out no, with fingers in ears going "la la la la la la la".