Winnipeg Construction X

[rivercity]

I mean it wasnt exactly as simple as city planners screwin around.. HBC owned and developed a huge tract of downtown.. multiple towns were amalgamated in the 70s.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

Originally Posted by rivercity

I mean it wasnt exactly as simple as city planners screwin around.. HBC owned and developed a huge tract of downtown.. multiple towns were amalgamated in the 70s.

IIRC they sold off multiple tracts of lands to different developers. The odd shapes of these tracts definitely contributed to some of the odd street alignments here. And yeah, you're right. Before Unicity Winnipeg was a series of smaller cities who all had their own planning agendas.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

That's what happens when city planners built Winnipeg as several distinct areas, instead of a grid system like Edmonton and Calgary. Even though Edmonton now has far more people than Winnipeg, the traffic is noticeably not as bad.

All of Winnipeg was amalgamated in 1974 (49 years ago), there is no excuse for any city of 840K to have a roadway network to still serve a city of 400K!

An inner ring road should have been completely built and operational as far back as 1990!

Saskatoon and Regina roadways put Winnipeg to shame!

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by rivercity

I mean it wasnt exactly as simple as city planners screwin around.. HBC owned and developed a huge tract of downtown.. multiple towns were amalgamated in the 70s.

Edmonton and Calgary had multiple towns as well, at one time. Edmonton had Jasper Place, Beverley, North Edmonton, Calder, and Old Strathcona. Calgary had Forest Lawn, Bowness, Crescent Heights, and Montgomery.

It just seems unlike Edmonton and Calgary, where many of the major roads are grid-like, all major Winnipeg roads start close to downtown (Main, Portage, Notre Dame, Pembina, Osborne, St.Mary's, Corydon, Grant, Nairn, Henderson, Provencher, etc), and head out in all directions, somewhat like a pie.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by Unbending

Windsor Hotel on Garry St has been sold. Residents of the hotel have been given eviction notice. Sounds like a potential redevelopment.

I would think it was sold based on the value of its 50 stall parking lot to the south. It’s quite an active and lucrative lot. The building is basically worthless. The vendor has value and it would not surprise me if it became a stand alone.

There is also the remote possibility funds could be made available for a rapid housing initiative at the hotel.

A potential buyer, True North. They own property in proximity.

I think it’s outcome and destiny is somewhere between the St Regis and St Charles.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

All of Winnipeg was amalgamated in 1974 (49 years ago), there is no excuse for any city of 840K to have a roadway network to still serve a city of 400K!

An inner ring road should have been completely built and operational as far back as 1990!

Saskatoon and Regina roadways put Winnipeg to shame!

Winnipeg had planned an inner ring road as early as the 1960s. I've seen what it was going to look like. Bishop Grandin (1978) and Chief Peguis Trail (2011), were the only sections to go according to plan. The East extension was compromised, and rerouted when a section reserved for the road was designated as "Tall Grass Prairie" just north of Regent ave.

The original plan was to build the road from the bend of Kenaston (north of McGillivary), westward, then have it bend north to the present day Charleswood Parkway.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

Stuff like this happened all over central Winnipeg

[Spocket]

So much idealism over the last couple of pages.

Firstly, Winnipeg as it stands today wasn't planned under a single planning department. Different cities had different ideas of their own.

If Winnipeg genuinely has the third worst traffic congestion in the country, I'd chock it up to construction rather than any planning issues. Winnipeg is probably the largest city in the industrialized world without a major freeway system (or even a single freeway for that matter other than the Disraeli) You can blame that on Katz as per my understanding of his reign.

As usual, the chatter about shutting down half the city to encourage more people to walk in -30 degree weather is completely unrealistic (which is why nobody with power ever suggests doing any of it) Shut down Osborne between X and Y will *not* turn the area into a utopia. It'll transfer the traffic to other routes and that's about it. If you want high pedestrian activity, you've got to line the streets with much higher density housing. People aren't going to walk to Wal-Mart when it's 5 kilometers away and the number of people who are interested in blowing way more money at a boutique than anything they buy is actually worth is grossly overestimated. There's such a thing as market saturation and unless you can figure out how to get mini-Wal-Marts on every second street, nobody is giving up their car to bike it in February.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by Spocket

As usual, the chatter about shutting down half the city to encourage more people to walk in -30 degree weather is completely unrealistic (which is why nobody with power ever suggests doing any of it) Shut down Osborne between X and Y will *not* turn the area into a utopia. It'll transfer the traffic to other routes and that's about it. If you want high pedestrian activity, you've got to line the streets with much higher density housing. People aren't going to walk to Wal-Mart when it's 5 kilometers away and the number of people who are interested in blowing way more money at a boutique than anything they buy is actually worth is grossly overestimated. There's such a thing as market saturation and unless you can figure out how to get mini-Wal-Marts on every second street, nobody is giving up their car to bike it in February.

Lot of hyperbole in this statement. Nobody stated anything close to “shutting down half the city” to encourage more people to walk by referring to close Osborne St to cars between Stradbrook and River. And even if Osborne was closed to cars for longer distance it’s not like we have to ban public transit on these streets too. It’s probably a much better idea to make our commercial streets with decent urban form into transit dedicated ROW, and use the rest of the space that would’ve been for street parking and additional lanes to expand sidewalks/implement bike lanes. That’s how mode share splits can be transformed in a radical manner.

Also, people do shop at these boutique grocery stores such as Safeway and Foodfare in the inner city. If they don’t own a car they can more then make up the cost of slightly more expensive produce. Walmart and Superstore aren’t the only places people can buy their groceries from.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by Spocket

If Winnipeg genuinely has the third worst traffic congestion in the country, I'd chock it up to construction rather than any planning issues. Winnipeg is probably the largest city in the industrialized world without a major freeway system (or even a single freeway for that matter other than the Disraeli) You can blame that on Katz as per my understanding of his reign.

I don't believe construction or lack of freeways play any role whatsoever in traffic problems in Winnipeg. For one thing, Calgary and Edmonton have far more construction going on at any given time than Winnipeg can only dream of, and yet traffic is not as bad in Alberta.

As for freeways, just look at some major US cities, like LA, which arguably has the most elaborate freeway system in the World, yet has some of the worst traffic problems anywhere in the World. It definitely has little to do with freeways. IN fact, one can make an argument that the freeways that were build through downtown/inner city neighbourhoods have created more traffic than if they had not been built at all.

[thurmas]

I would say the poor planning over the years of Kenaston and Regent are likely the main culprits of our traffic congestion. I would say the 1980s city council and mayor Norrie caused a lot of the current problems Winnipeg faces today.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by thurmas

I would say the poor planning over the years of Kenaston and Regent are likely the main culprits of our traffic congestion. I would say the 1980s city council and mayor Norrie caused a lot of the current problems Winnipeg faces today.

Kenaston is just baffling in general. The city built the Sterling Lyon Parkway, to replace Wilkes east of Charleswood, but for some bizarre reason, did not make an overpass at the Kenaston intersection. With the IKEA and the shopping area, it has created tons of congestion.

The city also put in too many traffic lights and interchanges around the Kenaston Crossing area.

[esquire]

^ It is horrendous. Winnipeg road policy is to build the expressways and put in everything but the interchanges. As you stagger from one 120 second red light to another.

[WinCitySparky]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

Kenaston is just baffling in general. The city built the Sterling Lyon Parkway, to replace Wilkes east of Charleswood, but for some bizarre reason, did not make an overpass at the Kenaston intersection. With the IKEA and the shopping area, it has created tons of congestion.

The city also put in too many traffic lights and interchanges around the Kenaston Crossing area.

I never thought of this and when I think about it now it seems insane that was left out, especially when considering for how busy traffic was there already and how it was inevitably volume was going to increase.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

I don't believe construction or lack of freeways play any role whatsoever in traffic problems in Winnipeg. For one thing, Calgary and Edmonton have far more construction going on at any given time than Winnipeg can only dream of, and yet traffic is not as bad in Alberta.

As for freeways, just look at some major US cities, like LA, which arguably has the most elaborate freeway system in the World, yet has some of the worst traffic problems anywhere in the World. It definitely has little to do with freeways. IN fact, one can make an argument that the freeways that were build through downtown/inner city neighbourhoods have created more traffic than if they had not been built at all.

I wasn't arguing for freeway construction. The opposite, in fact. If freeways always lead to more congestion then we would expect Calgary and Edmonton to have more of it, wouldn't we? So if the idea is that freeways lead to congestion then how could it be that a city with none of them has so much congestion? That's why I said the ranking suggests it has nothing to do with the built form of the city but rather maintenance of it.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Lot of hyperbole in this statement. Nobody stated anything close to “shutting down half the city” to encourage more people to walk by referring to close Osborne St to cars between Stradbrook and River. And even if Osborne was closed to cars for longer distance it’s not like we have to ban public transit on these streets too. It’s probably a much better idea to make our commercial streets with decent urban form into transit dedicated ROW, and use the rest of the space that would’ve been for street parking and additional lanes to expand sidewalks/implement bike lanes. That’s how mode share splits can be transformed in a radical manner.

Also, people do shop at these boutique grocery stores such as Safeway and Foodfare in the inner city. If they don’t own a car they can more then make up the cost of slightly more expensive produce. Walmart and Superstore aren’t the only places people can buy their groceries from.

Sure but if you shut down a major route leading to and from downtown, you ARE effectively shutting down half the city. Where are you going to redirect the traffic to and how is that going to make anything better? What you'll get is a street designed to handle the traffic you no longer allow on it and funnel it on to the only other route available. That's just gridlock for no real purpose or gain.

If you want to encourage transit use then you have to provide decent transit options. Nobody wants to wait outside for 20 minutes in the middle of January and they don't want to walk three blocks to get to their stop. The average density of this city provides very little room for greater frequency unless you want to spend half the city budget running empty buses. Higher density will solve this problem but that will take decades provided a plan is put in place immediately.

When I say boutiques, I'm talking about tattoo parlours and candle shops (or whatever) I've never heard anybody suggest that Safeway is any kind of boutique store but either way, to get people to walk to the supermarket means it will have to be a lot closer than a kilometer away. Again, higher densities are required. We are a very long way from needing wider sidewalks.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Sure but if you shut down a major route leading to and from downtown, you ARE effectively shutting down half the city. Where are you going to redirect the traffic to and how is that going to make anything better? What you'll get is a street designed to handle the traffic you no longer allow on it and funnel it on to the only other route available. That's just gridlock for no real purpose or gain.

Firstly, the rerouting of traffic would be moved mostly to Pembina where there is higher road capacity and less immediate density. Using Osborne as a transit only street with AT would make a lot of car trips for people immediately adjacent to Osborne unnecessary and promote a transition to more sustainable, less maintenance forms of transportation. Removing car traffic on streets would lead to spillover, but not to a cataclysmic level like you’re suggesting. Even then there’s always the option of just having transit on 2 of the lanes and leaving the other 2 lanes for cars rather then having 4 lanes for both which slows down transit usage and efficiency heavily. It would also increase the maximum through output of the road depending on transit frequencies

Originally Posted by Spocket

If you want to encourage transit use then you have to provide decent transit options. Nobody wants to wait outside for 20 minutes in the middle of January and they don't want to walk three blocks to get to their stop. The average density of this city provides very little room for greater frequency unless you want to spend half the city budget running empty buses. Higher density will solve this problem but that will take decades provided a plan is put in place immediately.

That’s obvious though. Shutting down a street to cars would have to come with very frequent transit headways (5 minutes or less headways). Winnipeg itself doesn’t have the density to sustain these levels of service in a lot of areas as you mentioned. However, in certain arterials such as Osborne the density is 100% high enough to support high transit frequency. There’s apartment buildings and rowhouses either on the street or adjacent to the street for long stretches of it. Not to mention on a broader scale being next to U of W, St. Vital Mall, and a few high schools would create the appropriate demand for high transit frequency. The 16 is already one of the cities busiest routes for a reason. Furthermore, having the transit garage on the street itself means easy access to a high quantity of busses with a few route changes.

Originally Posted by Spocket

When I say boutiques, I'm talking about tattoo parlours and candle shops (or whatever) I've never heard anybody suggest that Safeway is any kind of boutique store but either way, to get people to walk to the supermarket means it will have to be a lot closer than a kilometer away. Again, higher densities are required. We are a very long way from needing wider sidewalks.

Are streets like Roslyn, River, Stradbrook, or basically any street in the village not dense enough with their apartments and rowhouses dominating the street front? The area has a density of 10,000 people/sq km and so are the surrounding neighborhoods in the Downtown region. Hell there are even more sections on Dakota and Salter that have appropriate density for higher transit use but isn’t being taken advantage of because of hostile infrastructure design for pedestrians. We are probably overdue on wider sidewalks in such dense regions relative to the rest of the city.

[P&M40BELOW]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

I don't believe construction or lack of freeways play any role whatsoever in traffic problems in Winnipeg. For one thing, Calgary and Edmonton have far more construction going on at any given time than Winnipeg can only dream of, and yet traffic is not as bad in Alberta.

As for freeways, just look at some major US cities, like LA, which arguably has the most elaborate freeway system in the World, yet has some of the worst traffic problems anywhere in the World. It definitely has little to do with freeways. IN fact, one can make an argument that the freeways that were build through downtown/inner city neighbourhoods have created more traffic than if they had not been built at all.

LA has a terrible freeway system. If you want a city with a really functional freeway go to Minneapolis; It’s the most functional I’ve seen.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by P&M40BELOW

LA has a terrible freeway system. If you want a city with a really functional freeway go to Minneapolis; It’s the most functional I’ve seen.

I have not been to Minneapolis in 25 years, but I recall traffic was really bad, especially going through the inner city or downtown.

[thurmas]

Freeway in Detroit moved very well when I was there.