Winnipeg Construction X

[esquire]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

bring on massive clover leaf interchanges inside the city (and help me getting to my kids activities on time)!

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

I think it's true that it doesn't have to be either-or between transit and roads, but I am guessing that the exurban municipalities that might be part of this new regional planning authority will want roads prioritized, rather than transit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but upgrading the perimeter is a provincial matter, is it not? Why would this fall under the mandate for the urban planning authority anyway?

If that's the case, fine, then add tolls to enter the city which can be directed toward improving transit within the perimeter.

[Authentic_City]

Interesting idea. Too bad Manitobans never embraced the idea of user fees for roads and bridges. Halifax and Vancouver have toll bridges. Why not a toll highway for those who wanna go fast?

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by esquire

It's too bad the city's planning function is so badly broken that the province feels the need to step in and fill the vacuum.

Broken how? In that it doesn't give every developer exactly what it wants?

All of the provincial government's interest in regional and city planning as it pertains to Winnipeg has come about because the usual cast of developers/consultants have been horrified to discover that the Katz/Sheegl/etc. era is over, and that planning is not just a rubber stamp on real estate deals. They now to have pay impact fees for new development, and may not be able to develop whatever they want, wherever they want. They are the ones who are angry, and they are the ones who are saying (anonymously, in Powerpoint presentations whipped up by the Treasury Board) that the system is broken.

That doesn't mean there isn't major things the City could do better: the planners, the engineers, the decision makers, and the decision-making process (I wouldn't wish sitting through an Appeals hearing on my worst enemy). But trust me, the provincial government is only addressing city building issues because developers are angry and have fewer allies at the city... so they're going to the province.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

Interesting idea. Too bad Manitobans never embraced the idea of user fees for roads and bridges. Halifax and Vancouver have toll bridges. Why not a toll highway for those who wanna go fast?

Toll highways wouldn’t work here. There are too many ways to go around. Unless you put tolls at every entrance to the city, which would just be stupid and make everyone angry. The only highway that would possibly work as a toll would be 75. The citizens of Winnipeg really need to stop bitching about people from surrounding municipalities coming to the city. It’s getting old and makes you look petty. And as for tv bitching about tifs supporting farmers? What’s the big deal? You all like bacon and hotdogs in the city... unless you want Winnipeg to start growing its own food, stop complaining. How many jobs exist in Winnipeg because of farmers in Manitoba?

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

Interesting idea. Too bad Manitobans never embraced the idea of user fees for roads and bridges. Halifax and Vancouver have toll bridges. Why not a toll highway for those who wanna go fast?

This is a great idea and also exactly the type of thing Pallister's new planning authority will be designed to strike down. If the last few years are any indication Pallister's priority will be to screw Winnipeg any chance he gets out of sheer spite and pettiness and pander to rural voters.

[Authentic_City]

I agree that Pallister is no friend to central Winnipeg and he certainly wants to cater to his base in suburban/exurban Winnipeg and rural Manitoba. However, I also find it strange the the NDP, with a strong base of support in central Winnipeg, never really put forward a cohesive, progressive urban agenda all those years they were in office. Sure, they did a few things, but they could have really built up a better transit network, for example. But yeah, I agree, the Pallister years are not likely to be good ones for progressive urban policy in Winnipeg.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

I agree that Pallister is no friend to central Winnipeg and he certainly wants to cater to his base in suburban/exurban Winnipeg and rural Manitoba. However, I also find it strange the the NDP, with a strong base of support in central Winnipeg, never really put forward a cohesive, progressive urban agenda all those years they were in office. Sure, they did a few things, but they could have really built up a better transit network, for example. But yeah, I agree, the Pallister years are not likely to be good ones for progressive urban policy in Winnipeg.

The provincial NDP is like the federal Conservatives. Their base will just blindly support them no matter what so they don't do jack shit. They were in power for 4 straight terms and did nothing for poverty, let our public services fall into oblivion, and let CFS become a modern residential school system. My personal favourite is how all the NDP supporters I know insist on electoral reform at the federal level, but have never once mentioned it provincially where their party had the power to enact it for 16 years...

[GreyGarden]

If they were to go ahead with this tribunal, I suspect that a developer wanting to appeal the municipality's decision, would have to make the case that the municipality's initial decision did not align with their master plan or best planning principles. This would involve hiring planners and experts who would try and make the case that the municipality's decision did not represent best or reasonable (administrative law) planning principles/practices. This would often boil down to arguing that X level of density was appropriate for the area and was consistent with the City's plan, etc. We've seen this with the OMB and LPAT - on one hand it took significant power away from the municipality, but it also made it hard for projects to get blocked based on NIMBYism.

For the record, I agree with TV, the province should not be able to decide municipal issues. I'm not strictly against planning review tribunals, but they should be controlled and appointed by the municipalities themselves, not the province. We've seen how problematic it's been in Ontario and Toronto. They should put the money that hiring tribunal members, lawyers and experts will cost on a per issue/case basis and put it towards the planning department so they can hire permanent smart people.

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Toll highways wouldn’t work here. There are too many ways to go around. Unless you put tolls at every entrance to the city, which would just be stupid and make everyone angry. The only highway that would possibly work as a toll would be 75. The citizens of Winnipeg really need to stop bitching about people from surrounding municipalities coming to the city. It’s getting old and makes you look petty. And as for tv bitching about tifs supporting farmers? What’s the big deal? You all like bacon and hotdogs in the city... unless you want Winnipeg to start growing its own food, stop complaining. How many jobs exist in Winnipeg because of farmers in Manitoba?

I agree, we can't use tolls to force people to pay when they drive into Winnipeg. But that's not the point. On the other hand, we could use tolls to help build specific pieces of infrastructure, like bridges or perhaps overpasses. You can easily avoid toll roads and highways in other parts of Canada or the US. That's not the point. The point is, if you want to build a nice new road, why not make the primary users pay a fee to offset the cost? It's no different than a user fee at a city owned pool or library or the zoo. Seems pretty fair to me. But of course, it's absurd to think we can force everyone to pay when you cross over the perimeter. That's not at all what I'm thinking about here.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

I agree, we can't use tolls to force people to pay when they drive into Winnipeg. But that's not the point. On the other hand, we could use tolls to help build specific pieces of infrastructure, like bridges or perhaps overpasses. You can easily avoid toll roads and highways in other parts of Canada or the US. That's not the point. The point is, if you want to build a nice new road, why not make the primary users pay a fee to offset the cost? It's no different than a user fee at a city owned pool or library or the zoo. Seems pretty fair to me. But of course, it's absurd to think we can force everyone to pay when you cross over the perimeter. That's not at all what I'm thinking about here.

Why can't we?

Recent report suggests charging tolls to non-winnipeggers or charging a payroll tax on non-Winnipeggers working in Winnipeg.

Story here:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...ccpa-1.5318383

"The report says other cities with a high number of commuters coming in from outside — including Vancouver, New York, Stockholm and London — have implemented, or are in the process of implementing commuter fees."

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

Agreed 100%. The big mistake with the Perimeter is that the province didn't start doing that as soon as the loop was completed back in 1997. Even at the modest rate of 1 new interchange every 3 years, we would have 7 new interchanges with one more on the way, which would have pretty well taken care of the most treacherous at-grade intersections.

The pace has definitely been slower but in that general time frame 2.5 (*) new overpasses have been completed and another two have had significant rebuilds including the complete deck replacement and through (under) lane widening of Roblin.

I call the new 59N/101 project 1.5 since it included an overpass at Raleigh.

The other net new one was Centreport.

The other major rehab was McPhillips.

Also the Hwy 2/3 project and the St Norbert By-Pass/Waverly interchange are well into the planning stages, as are major rehabs for Portage Ave and Wilkes.

Also keep in mind funding was diverted in 1997 from work on the Perimeter, specifically 59N/101 into a major round of new flood proofing projects including a major overhaul of the floodway. The province was put in a tough place on where to spend money and roads did take a back seat for a time.

All things considered, adjusting for the flood proofing, they aren't too far off that 7 interchange project target.

[esquire]

^ I take your point, but a net total of one new interchange (since 101/59 was effectively a rebuild/expansion that was delayed by 20 years) in 30 years is pretty weak.

[trueviking]

so...just doing some site planning and going through the zoning by-laws.

Site is on Portage Avenue, East of Broadway but not downtown. The property is 210 feet deep. 105 feet wide. It's within the Urban Infill Area.

For a building that is personal services like a clinic on the ground floor with office space above, I have to give up 150 feet of the site to parking and can only have a building that is two storeys tall with floors of only 7,000 square feet.

A 22,000 square foot site has to dedicate 15,000 square feet to storing cars - 70% of the site - and the tallest building possible with that amount of parking is two storeys, with small foor plates..

On the biggest street in the city.

That's nuts.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by trueviking

That's nuts.

To put it very, very mildly

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

I like you and your thoughts, however getting goods to market efficiently is important! bring on massive clover leaf interchanges inside the city (and help me getting to my kids activities on time)!

Yeah. The old goods and services argument. So what if a truck has to stop at a stoplight before leaving the city...or slow down to 60km/h. You really think that crushes the transport of goods and services coming from across the country.

It’s a matter of priorities. I would rather they fixed the roads crumbling under our feet than spend billions to shave three minutes for long haul truckers or exurban residents driving to the city.

And if we are listing things that grow the economy or improve our quality of life, being able to exit the perimeter really fast is pretty far down on my list of ways to spend billions of dollars. Sorry if that puts me in a bubble. Winnipeg has a $7billion infrastructure deficit. It has huge areas with combined sewers. How about we fix those things before we prioritize exiting the highway without pushing the brake pedal.

I also don’t believe increasing speeds on the highway makes them safer. There’s a reason Americans die on the road in far greater numbers than Canadians.

[drew]

Originally Posted by trueviking

so...just doing some site planning and going through the zoning by-laws.

Site is on Portage Avenue, East of Broadway but not downtown. The property is 210 feet deep. 105 feet wide. It's within the Urban Infill Area.

For a building that is personal services like a clinic on the ground floor with office space above, I have to give up 150 feet of the site to parking and can only have a building that is two storeys tall with floors of only 6,000 square feet.

A 21,000 square foot site has to dedicate 15,000 square feet to storing cars - 70% of the site - and the tallest building possible with that amount of parking is two storeys, with tiny foor plates..

On the biggest street in the city.

That's nuts.

Variance? Can't imagine there would be much opposition if the site it the one we all think it is.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by drew

Variance? Can't imagine there would be much opposition if the site it the one we all think it is.

You're probably right, but the fact that the default permissible building is basically a 1972 strip mall with anything else including a normal urban building requiring time and money to get special permission from the City is insanity. That's an example of a zoning bylaw that doesn't just not help, but actually harms the city it is supposed to regulate.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Yeah. The old goods and services argument. So what if a truck has to stop at a stoplight before leaving the city...or slow down to 60km/h. You really think that crushes the transport of goods and services coming from across the country.

It’s a matter of priorities. I would rather they fixed the roads crumbling under our feet than spend billions to shave three minutes for long haul truckers or exurban residents driving to the city.

And if we are listing things that grow the economy or improve our quality of life, being able to exit the perimeter really fast is pretty far down on my list of ways to spend billions of dollars. Sorry if that puts me in a bubble. Winnipeg has a $7billion infrastructure deficit. It has huge areas with combined sewers. How about we fix those things before we prioritize exiting the highway without pushing the brake pedal.

I also don’t believe increasing speeds on the highway makes them safer. There’s a reason Americans die on the road in far greater numbers than Canadians.

Unfortunately I feel your view has become warped and overly ideological to the point of being unhealthy for a place to be able to grow. Granted there are other people on here that I feel are on the other side of the pendulum as well. your kind of like a racing horse with blinders on, going a million miles an hour in one direction with no idea or care for whats around you.

Yes, the things you speak of have a lot of value and should be prioritized accordingly. However, they should be prioritized with all the other concerns in mind as well. Neglecting infrastructure that allows for the increased movement of goods and services in a safe manner is as regressive a policy as anything you advocate for.

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Why can't we?

Recent report suggests charging tolls to non-winnipeggers or charging a payroll tax on non-Winnipeggers working in Winnipeg.

Story here:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...ccpa-1.5318383

"The report says other cities with a high number of commuters coming in from outside — including Vancouver, New York, Stockholm and London — have implemented, or are in the process of implementing commuter fees."

OK, you are correct, it is possible, but this isn't London or New York or even Vancouver. I'm not sure there would ever be the political will for this in Winnipeg. But a new fancy toll road or bridge could be more palatable as a way to get specific projects build. That's my point.