Winnipeg | Portage and Main

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by cheswick

It's comments like that that people say come across as arrogant. There are no facts that say opening the intersection is right and keeping it closed is wrong. It's a personal opinion. Even someone armed with every fact out there can be of the opinion that it should remained closed. The traffic will get worse. That's a fact. It will cost money. That's also a fact.

Except opponents are saying it will be a traffic nightmare and create gridlock. It won't.

They are saying nobody will cross there, but it will be a pedestrian bloodbath. That's kettle logic.

The vast majority of the money needs to be spent on the intersection anyway and the barriers need to be removed as part of the remediation of the failed envelope. So the money argument falls flat as well.

It's one thing to remain of the opinion it should stay closed, but then those who do need to not pretend that they have a logical reason for doing so.

[robertocarlos]

Buses on Fort is a stupid idea.

[Wolf13]

Let's be honest, there are better and worse opinions.

We can be arrogant because we're in our own bubble. I'm obviously more diplomatic to strangers who disagree, and I'm sure others are too.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by TimeFadesAway

Except opponents are saying it will be a traffic nightmare and create gridlock. It won't.

They are saying nobody will cross there, but it will be a pedestrian bloodbath. That's kettle logic.

The vast majority of the money needs to be spent on the intersection anyway and the barriers need to be removed as part of the remediation of the failed envelope. So the money argument falls flat as well.

It's one thing to remain of the opinion it should stay closed, but then those who do need to not pretend that they have a logical reason for doing so.

Except there are perfectly logical reasons to vote to keep it closed. The Dillion traffic study has the increase of commute for one path at over 5 minutes. Voting to keep closes because it will increase my commute by over 5 minutes is a completely logical reason. Even if it increased my commute by 30 seconds, it could still be logical to vote to keep it closed.

The argument that anyone who votes to keep it closed is uninformed or voting illogically is simply incorrect.

[Ando]

Good article in the FP about outright lies about PandM by Browaty and Jenny. Browaty claims that the business owners received kickbacks from Bowman in return for their support of opening, and earlier on Jenny claimed the Yes group was funneling its funds to Bowman's re-election campaign. How do you like the No side now? Is outright lying elitist or arrogant? Or something else?

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/civice...ethics-mar-civic-campaign-497957521.html

[Ando]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Except there are perfectly logical reasons to vote to keep it closed. The Dillion traffic study has the increase of commute for one path at over 5 minutes. Voting to keep closes because it will increase my commute by over 5 minutes is a completely logical reason. Even if it increased my commute by 30 seconds, it could still be logical to vote to keep it closed.

The argument that anyone who votes to keep it closed is uninformed or voting illogically is simply incorrect.

You claim to want it open but you spend a lot of time talking about the good reasons to keep it closed. So I ask you, what are the beneficial reasons that you are voting Yes?

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Ando

You keep giving us these anecdotal cases that you know of where people have supposedly decided to vote No because they don't like the Yes group. Think about the logic of that. A reasoned decision is to decide whether you think a project is good or not and vote on that basis. If you think it is a good idea, you don't turn around and oppose because you don't happen to like the group that is lobbying for change. If those anecdotal people you refer to really though opening was a good idea, I suspect most of them would vote that way. BTW, if you think there is no organized No group, then you don't know social media. It has its leaders like Browaty and Motkaluk and Brodbeck and gets its message out in a different way. However distorted that may be.

I don't you read my post. I didn't say that people who think it's a good idea are voting no because of the condescension. I said that it's the people who are on the fence or indifferent who are being turned off. In my opinion, it's those (the "undecideds" or "don't care one way or another") who Team Open needs to appeal to.

I don't agree that "No" is an organized campaign. There's no media campaign, Go-Fund-Me with $100k aspirations, spokespeople, pop-up spaces, producing videos/pamphlets, lobbying businesses, buying airtime, etc. Sure, there are politicians against opening the corner, and people on social media who are against it too. That doesn't make them an organized group like "Team Open" is.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by Ando

You claim to want it open but you spend a lot of time talking about the good reasons to keep it closed. So I ask you, what are the beneficial reasons that you are voting Yes?

Increased accessibility to those with limited mobility. Increased pedestrian activity on the streets of downtown makes for a safer, more vibrant core imo. I believe its one step to help spur development downtown, increasing density, which makes for better tax base. I want to see a densely populated vibrant downtown. I spend a lot of time in Montreal and I'm jealous. Do I feel P&M is a magic bullet? No, but I think it's a step in the right direction. To show that the city embraces urban living and prioritizes pedestrians over cars in its core.

I'm actually pretty passionate about opening the intersection. I've donated to voteopen and have a vote open sign on my lawn. When discussing with people who are ill informed I give them the facts on the matter and try to change their mind. I have changed the mind of some people.

With all that said, my opinion is just that, mine. Like I said, just because someone is voting no, doesn't mean they don't have the facts or are illogical. Someone can vote no in an informed, logical manner, if they value things differently than I do. What I hope #voteopen does is educate those people who are voting based on erroneous assumptions.

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Except there are perfectly logical reasons to vote to keep it closed. The Dillion traffic study has the increase of commute for one path at over 5 minutes. Voting to keep closes because it will increase my commute by over 5 minutes is a completely logical reason. Even if it increased my commute by 30 seconds, it could still be logical to vote to keep it closed.

The argument that anyone who votes to keep it closed is uninformed or voting illogically is simply incorrect.

It's logical if you have no consideration for others, I suppose. It will increase my commute by 5 minutes, however, I'm not an a**hole, so I'm voting yes.

[cheswick]

To the above, I've been trying to put together a quick myth busters thing to share on my social media channels to try swaying undecided. I'm not the most articulate person, so if anyone wants to take what I've started and add to it. Especially adding sources of information, please feel free.

Portage & Main Myths vs Facts

Myth: P&M was closed due to safety concerns
Fact: The intersection was closed as a result of a deal with property developers Trizec Corporation to drive traffic to their proposed underground mall. The decision was denounced by disabled groups at the time.

Myth: It was cause traffic chaos.
Fact: The dillion traffic study conducted pegged an average increase of AM commute at 30 seconds and PM commute at less than a minute for those who travel through the intersection.
See: https://winnipeg.ca/interhom/PortageMain/pdfs/TrafficStudy.pdf

Myth: It will cost too much
Fact: It will cost more to keep the intersection closed that opening it. A recent WFP store shed light on the crumbling infrastructure of the 40 year old barricades. They will have to be removed regardless to fix the structural damage, and then replaced.
See: https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/civice...-regardless-of-referendum-497288121.html

Myth: It will hurt the local businesses.
Fact: All four property owners on the corner are in favaour of the intersection opening. In addition to many the exchange district biz, downtown biz, economic development Winnipeg and everyone’s favourite small business owner, Obby Kahn.
See: https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/civice...will-hurt-city-biz-owners-493766851.html

Myth: People will be killed daily by all the cars travelling through the intersection.
Fact: Portage & Main is only the third busiest intersection in the city. Downtown intersections have less pedestrian collisions than other intersections in the city. Every car that crosses through Portage and Main crosses through an intersection that allows pedestrians a block away without issue.

Myth: This is just Brian Bowmans vanity project.
Fact: Since 1992 all but one mayor tried to do it (only Sam Katz didn’t). It’s only now possible due to the pending expiration of the closure agreement and the property owners agreement.

Why vote open?

Urban planning should be left to urban planners, not citizens. Canadian urban planners on panel unanimously agree that the intersection should be opened. .
See: https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/civicelection2018/at-the-crossroads-out-of-step-492702461.html

Increased accessibility for the disabled. It currently takes someone in a wheelchair 15 minutes to cross the 30 meter intersection (assuming the elevators are operational in which they are often not).
See: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/...in-underground-in-a-wheelchair-1.4857873

Safety. Many, but especially women have voiced their concerns of having to traverse darkened stairways at night to traverse the intersection.
See: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/portage-main-women-safety-1.4760581

Spur development. The owner of a vacant lot near Winnipeg’s most famous intersection says it would like to develop the empty property, but the lack of access due to barriers is blocking development. A more developed, denser downtown and Winnipeg would ease the tax burden for all tax payers.
See: https://globalnews.ca/news/4460867/barri...ng-portage-and-main-property-owners-say/

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Except there are perfectly logical reasons to vote to keep it closed. The Dillion traffic study has the increase of commute for one path at over 5 minutes. Voting to keep closes because it will increase my commute by over 5 minutes is a completely logical reason. Even if it increased my commute by 30 seconds, it could still be logical to vote to keep it closed.

The argument that anyone who votes to keep it closed is uninformed or voting illogically is simply incorrect.

I'm guessing the 5 minutes is being conservative, I would venture to guess it would add up to a lot more than that, for one thing road capacity just isn't there on streets funneling on to both Portage and Main. It will be a gong should should it open.

How many of these proponents actually have to travel through the intersection, it's fine to be all in favour of something if it doesn't affect you personally!

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

If the studies determine there is some net benefit then it is objectively right. There can be right and wrong opinions here. It's not all based on personal opinion

Objectively right? This is a high-level engineering study with a Class 4 cost estimate. There are conclusions in the study that have been conveniently ignored by Team Open because it doesn't suit the narrative, including the $1.8 M a year in additional Transit operating costs (which one poster assumed was a number made up by the Transit union, even though it's right there in the Dillon report). When discussing traffic delays, Team Open emphasizes certain movements where there will be minimal delays; they don't point out the movements with delays of several minutes. But, when they discuss pedestrian delays, they pick the worst case scenario.

I know I've mentioned this before, but it's a bit curious to call the results of a high level engineering report "objectively right" or "facts". Dillon's report highlights several limitations, says that more study is needed, and includes a cost estimate at a level with a high level of uncertainty (Class 4).

A few years ago, there were pages and pages of debate on this forum on the choosing of the dog-leg route for the BRT line. Ironically, it was Dillon the authored the report strongly recommending the dog-leg over a rail-line or Pembina option. The report and its conclusions were widely criticized on this forum, with some even going as far as making allegations that the City interfered with the report to get the conclusion they wanted! Bold claims of course, considering engineers follow a strict code of ethics. However, at that time, very few seemed to consider the BRT report as "fact" or "objectively right". Quite the opposite - the conclusions of that Dillon report were "biased", "politically motivated", "wrong".

TL;DR: We need to be careful about calling reports that support our points of view "facts" and "objectively right", but then throw out the conclusions of reports that don't support our points of view.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

I'm guessing the 5 minutes is being conservative, I would venture to guess it would add up to a lot more than that, for one thing road capacity just isn't there on streets funneling on to both Portage and Main. It will be a gong should should it open.

How many of these proponents actually have to travel through the intersection, it's fine to be all in favour of something if it doesn't affect you personally!

If I had to guess many of the proponents would be benefitted by being able to cross the street. Incidentally we seem to have forgotten it's a street and not an interstate.

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

If I had to guess many of the proponents would be benefitted by being able to cross the street. Incidentally we seem to have forgotten it's a street and not an interstate.

Right!? Like, guys, there's already lights there. You already have to stop anyway. They can just cross while you're stopped, it will barely make a difference. People act like we're tearing down a freeway.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by windypeg

Right!? Like, guys, there's already lights there. You already have to stop anyway. They can just cross while you're stopped, it will barely make a difference. People act like we're tearing down a freeway.

Lol in some parts of the world they're actually taking down freeways to improve the health of the urban environment. But we have the advantage of not needing to tear a clunky structure down... sort of. Like there are places with far worse traffic that have narrower and crosseable streets. This isn't gonna trigger the second coming of christ.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Increased accessibility to those with limited mobility. Increased pedestrian activity on the streets of downtown makes for a safer, more vibrant core imo. I believe its one step to help spur development downtown, increasing density, which makes for better tax base. I want to see a densely populated vibrant downtown. I spend a lot of time in Montreal and I'm jealous. Do I feel P&M is a magic bullet? No, but I think it's a step in the right direction. To show that the city embraces urban living and prioritizes pedestrians over cars in its core.

I'm actually pretty passionate about opening the intersection. I've donated to voteopen and have a vote open sign on my lawn. When discussing with people who are ill informed I give them the facts on the matter and try to change their mind. I have changed the mind of some people.

With all that said, my opinion is just that, mine. Like I said, just because someone is voting no, doesn't mean they don't have the facts or are illogical. Someone can vote no in an informed, logical manner, if they value things differently than I do. What I hope #voteopen does is educate those people who are voting based on erroneous assumptions.

There are degrees to being informed. I believe, and I think you agree, that a good chunk of the no crowd whom we could consider informed are not seeing the big picture... and unable to perhaps see what greater good (as you listed just before) could come of this.

Originally Posted by cheswick

To the above, I've been trying to put together a quick myth busters thing to share on my social media channels to try swaying undecided. I'm not the most articulate person, so if anyone wants to take what I've started and add to it. Especially adding sources of information, please feel free.

Portage & Main Myths vs Facts

Myth: P&M was closed due to safety concerns
Fact: The intersection was closed as a result of a deal with property developers Trizec Corporation to drive traffic to their proposed underground mall. The decision was denounced by disabled groups at the time.

Myth: It was cause traffic chaos.
Fact: The dillion traffic study conducted pegged an average increase of AM commute at 30 seconds and PM commute at less than a minute for those who travel through the intersection.
See: https://winnipeg.ca/interhom/PortageMain/pdfs/TrafficStudy.pdf

Myth: It will cost too much
Fact: It will cost more to keep the intersection closed that opening it. A recent WFP store shed light on the crumbling infrastructure of the 40 year old barricades. They will have to be removed regardless to fix the structural damage, and then replaced.
See: https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/civice...-regardless-of-referendum-497288121.html

Myth: It will hurt the local businesses.
Fact: All four property owners on the corner are in favaour of the intersection opening. In addition to many the exchange district biz, downtown biz, economic development Winnipeg and everyone’s favourite small business owner, Obby Kahn.
See: https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/civice...will-hurt-city-biz-owners-493766851.html

Myth: People will be killed daily by all the cars travelling through the intersection.
Fact: Portage & Main is only the third busiest intersection in the city. Downtown intersections have less pedestrian collisions than other intersections in the city. Every car that crosses through Portage and Main crosses through an intersection that allows pedestrians a block away without issue.

Myth: This is just Brian Bowmans vanity project.
Fact: Since 1992 all but one mayor tried to do it (only Sam Katz didn’t). It’s only now possible due to the pending expiration of the closure agreement and the property owners agreement.

Why vote open?

Urban planning should be left to urban planners, not citizens. Canadian urban planners on panel unanimously agree that the intersection should be opened. .
See: https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/civicelection2018/at-the-crossroads-out-of-step-492702461.html

Increased accessibility for the disabled. It currently takes someone in a wheelchair 15 minutes to cross the 30 meter intersection (assuming the elevators are operational in which they are often not).
See: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/...in-underground-in-a-wheelchair-1.4857873

Safety. Many, but especially women have voiced their concerns of having to traverse darkened stairways at night to traverse the intersection.
See: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/portage-main-women-safety-1.4760581

Spur development. The owner of a vacant lot near Winnipeg’s most famous intersection says it would like to develop the empty property, but the lack of access due to barriers is blocking development. A more developed, denser downtown and Winnipeg would ease the tax burden for all tax payers.
See: https://globalnews.ca/news/4460867/barri...ng-portage-and-main-property-owners-say/

AWESOME list. Will use.

Originally Posted by rrskylar

I'm guessing the 5 minutes is being conservative, I would venture to guess it would add up to a lot more than that, for one thing road capacity just isn't there on streets funneling on to both Portage and Main. It will be a gong should should it open.

How many of these proponents actually have to travel through the intersection, it's fine to be all in favour of something if it doesn't affect you personally!

?????

In what apocalyptic world would it take 5 mins longer?

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

If I had to guess many of the proponents would be benefitted by being able to cross the street. Incidentally we seem to have forgotten it's a street and not an interstate.

Bingo Bango Bongo.


Not sure that's a thing, but I'm using it.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Except there are perfectly logical reasons to vote to keep it closed. The Dillion traffic study has the increase of commute for one path at over 5 minutes. Voting to keep closes because it will increase my commute by over 5 minutes is a completely logical reason. Even if it increased my commute by 30 seconds, it could still be logical to vote to keep it closed.

The argument that anyone who votes to keep it closed is uninformed or voting illogically is simply incorrect.

130 cars out of 81,000 will see an increase of five minutes. The vast majority of cars will see very little effect. Even during peak afternoon rush hour 3/4 of all cars will see an increase measured in seconds.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Do they actually care all that much? I understand they all eventually signed on to the idea, but I don't see what's in it for them, really. If traffic gets worse around that area, it would only add to the incentive for their tenants to relocate somewhere else.

https://voteopenwpg.ca/press-release-portage-and-main-harvard-developments/

BMO also provided support to the voteopen group.

Dozens of exchange businesses also provided written support.

[Wigglez]

Boys boys boys... Democracy is all about compromise! So here we go:

You let us have a real downtown that isn't just a freeway wasteland and in return we take out all traffic controlled intersections on route 90 and increase the speed limit to 120!

Everyone wins!
We get a real downtown
You get to live your Mad Max dreams!

You're welcome! problem solved, world peace achieved.

#votewigglez

[Ando]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Increased accessibility to those with limited mobility. Increased pedestrian activity on the streets of downtown makes for a safer, more vibrant core imo. I believe its one step to help spur development downtown, increasing density, which makes for better tax base. I want to see a densely populated vibrant downtown. I spend a lot of time in Montreal and I'm jealous. Do I feel P&M is a magic bullet? No, but I think it's a step in the right direction. To show that the city embraces urban living and prioritizes pedestrians over cars in its core.

I'm actually pretty passionate about opening the intersection. I've donated to voteopen and have a vote open sign on my lawn. When discussing with people who are ill informed I give them the facts on the matter and try to change their mind. I have changed the mind of some people.

With all that said, my opinion is just that, mine. Like I said, just because someone is voting no, doesn't mean they don't have the facts or are illogical. Someone can vote no in an informed, logical manner, if they value things differently than I do. What I hope #voteopen does is educate those people who are voting based on erroneous assumptions.

Thanks - sometimes we lose sight of the real issues in all the political background noise.