Winnipeg Construction X

[BKB]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

Hahah u guys


Anyhow what's the fencing for around thé giant fédéral building on mcdermot across from the grain exchange building?

Re-roofing, I believe.

[wags_in_the_peg]

from FreePress, currently a surface parking lot on Notre Dame

"This summer, the MMF will break ground on an $11-million facility at 790 Notre Dame Ave. (between Beverley and Toronto streets), named Michif Manor.

The 12-room dwelling will house Métis families whose loved ones are undergoing medical treatment at the nearby Health Sciences Centre, similar to the existing Ronald McDonald House at 62 Juno St."

[pacman]

Originally Posted by trueviking

It is a billion dollar expansion. The bridge is 100% part of the expansion. It’s a myth that it needs to be replaced anyways. Remove the sewer, and you go from $1.2b to something slightly less than a billion.

Isn't it frustrating to you when white lies and misrepresentations are used to skew the optics in order to spin the public's perception of a project unfairly? You of all people were pissed off more than most at the way the no side misrepresented the cost of opening Portage and Main by including a ton of inflated and some would say unnecessary/unrelated costs such as adding the cost of buses. Also, just like this project I seem to remember you being frustrated at the perception of an inflated bill because it included costs that were going to happen regardless because the lifespan of the infrastructure at the intersection was expired and needed to be replaced. I remember you arguing that once you removed those conveniently inflated costs the public would see that the true cost of opening Portage and Main was merely a fraction of the advertised cost.

Before you assume I was against opening Portage and Main (I wasn't), and assume I want Route 90 expanded at all costs (I don't), I'm merely pointing out that your spin of this project seems hypocritical and just muddies the situation. Real costs in realistic context is how I would prefer this project is discussed instead of the way it is currently being discussed.

[borkborkbork]

This is an interesting debate:

Should we let a core piece of infrastructure continue to crumble and deteriorate past its service life? Or should we mortgage the future of the city on a giant road megaproject?

I wish this kind of impossible decision was a bit more front of mind every time the city approves another car-dependent suburb full of single family residences. Because the Peguis extension and 90 expansion are both just symptoms of a city that treats sprawl as if it's costless at the time of development, and then is shocked and surprised that suburbs come with a quick hit of new tax revenues followed by decades of infrastructure costs.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by trueviking

The thing about the Paris picture is that winnipeg only has the giant roads. And I can guarantee no road consumes 7% of Paris’ property taxes.

It's a stupid and unfair comparison. Paris is one of the most walkable and bikeable cities on earth, with one of the most extensive subway systems on earth, with a couple of freeways crammed in, where they are actually actively reducing some of those routes. And Winnipeg is the opposite of all of that - completely car-dependent, impossible to navigate by foot or transit, broke and adding lanes we can't afford while continuing to neglect alternatives. Winnipeg is by far the easier & faster city to travel by car, with or without a proper freeway.

This is like if a doctor told an obese patient they couldn't eat bacon cheeseburgers anymore, and the patient says "but my friend Pierre is a patient here and he says you let HIM eat cheeseburgers!" ... Well, Pierre runs 5 miles a day and eats salad most of the time, so he can have the odd burger. Context matters.

[esquire]

According to the MHS, Kenaston St. was created in 1907. The St. James Bridge was built in 1936, and twinned in 1962.

The bottom line is that Kenaston has been a major cross-town route for over 60 years, and has existed for well over a century. Just population growth alone since the 1960s necessitates an additional lane on Kenaston. If anything, the proposal to add one lane in each direction is quite modest considering population increases since the route was built. I don't get how this can be characterized as some sort of sprawl-inducing project, as though an expressway was being pushed through a farm field.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

According to the MHS, Kenaston St. was created in 1907. The St. James Bridge was built in 1936, and twinned in 1962.

The bottom line is that Kenaston has been a major cross-town route for over 60 years, and has existed for well over a century. Just population growth alone since the 1960s necessitates an additional lane on Kenaston. If anything, the proposal to add one lane in each direction is quite modest considering population increases since the route was built. I don't get how this can be characterized as some sort of sprawl-inducing project, as though an expressway was being pushed through a farm field.

Which would be the case, by the way, if they decided that the "cross-town route" was to be some brand new road with the WRC parkway etc...

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this point, but the inability to get the absolute basics done, and done competently around here is breathtaking.

[Winnipegger]

We honestly shouldn't even be having this debate about Keneston. In any other North American city, this would be built. Simultaneously, we also shouldn't even be having debates about implementing the Transit master plan, extending rapid transit, electrifying transit, opening Portage & Main, whether or not to build a community centre in Waverley West, etc. But here we are.

It goes to show how decades of fiscal conservatism on behalf of the city is coming back to bite it. Most cities accommodate population and economic growth by expanding infrastructure either beforehand or during growth phases. In Winnipeg, we wait two decades and then hum and haw, do study after study, consultation after consultation, and then ten more years of debate before doing something about it - if we are lucky to do anything at all. And then politicians and businesses wonder why Winnipeg has the greatest out-migration numbers of any major Canadian city. Probably because people simply decide to leave because its easier to move and make a go of it in a city that already has everything you want as opposed to try and make the one you live in a better place via participation in the democratic process.

Maybe one day this City will get the council it needs. One that will pull up its big kid pants and decide to raise the revenue necessary to pay for past and current growth, fund both road and transit infrastructure projects to a significant degree to make a real difference to users, and allow this city to reach its full potential in attracting and RETAINING talent which is necessary for economic growth to also reach its full potential.

[esquire]

I guess Winnipeg is benefitting from the fact that it is becoming increasingly more challenging to do the outmigration thing. In 1970, Canada was your oyster. Even in 2000 there were quite a few options. But now, young people are effectively priced out of buying in Toronto and Vancouver unless they are in exceptional circumstances (generous parental help, very high earners or some other such situation). Montreal is only a practical choice if you speak French at a high level which rules out many. There's Calgary and Edmonton but they are barely any better in terms of urbanism (Calgary maybe slightly so, and Edmonton is hardly different than Winnipeg) although the lower income taxes/higher earning potential for many people might offset some of that. Ottawa may have a bit of pull factor too as you can get some of that central Canadian urbanism without breaking the bank completely.

But maybe more of this effectively forced retention could lead to more positive changes in the city?

[WestEndWander]

Originally Posted by Hecate

What a crappy attitude. Then why should anyone care about anything.

Tell me why I should care about the commute times of people who chose to live wherever they do? What a ridiculous argument.

Again, you want to live where infrastructure is known not to be conducive to expedient traffic movement, all the power to you. Just don't expect me to care when you complain or support a billion dollar project so you can get home to the dump 3 minutes sooner, that's all.

[WestEndWander]

Originally Posted by esquire

As much a part of Paris as the Latin Quarter

Do you people not understand the words coming out of my mouth?

I said urban freeways. Every city has these on their periphery.

The two are not even comparable. Attempting to do so is just disingenuous. One transects an established single family residential neighborhood, the other doesn't.

Route 90 won't be a freeway. They're going to be adding lights.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by WestEndWander

Tell me why I should care about the commute times of people who chose to live wherever they do? What a ridiculous argument.

Again, you want to live where infrastructure is known not to be conducive to expedient traffic movement, all the power to you. Just don't expect me to care when you complain or support a billion dollar project so you can get home to the dump 3 minutes sooner, that's all.

That kind of a fight is going to be a losing proposition for transit advocates. If it boils down to "build only what I want and fuck everybody else" then there will never be another rapid transit line built in this city within our lifetimes. I'd say that electoral support for rapid transit is lukewarm at best, there is no question that there are more votes in roads regardless of the amount of fiscal sense it makes.

A lot of people will just say that Osborne Village, the North End or (pick your inner city neighbourhood) already has transit service and there's no need to spend a fortune building a rapid transit line to get people home 3 minutes sooner. Hell, a lot of people said that about SW BRT.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by WestEndWander

Do you people not understand the words coming out of my mouth?

I said urban freeways. Every city has these on their periphery.

The two are not even comparable. Attempting to do so is just disingenuous. One transects an established single family residential neighborhood, the other doesn't.

Route 90 won't be a freeway. They're going to be adding lights.

The Peripherique, to use that example, is definitely not on the urban periphery of Paris. It may not run directly through the centre of town, but it definitely goes through old, built up parts of the city and even bisects neighbourhoods. If Route 90 is expanded as planned the net result from a planning standpoint will be effectively no different from what it is now... it's a stroad today, it's going to be a stroad tomorrow.

[WestEndWander]

Originally Posted by esquire

That kind of a fight is going to be a losing proposition for transit advocates. If it boils down to "build only what I want and fuck everybody else" then there will never be another rapid transit line built in this city within our lifetimes. I'd say that electoral support for rapid transit is lukewarm at best, there is no question that there are more votes in roads regardless of the amount of fiscal sense it makes.

A lot of people will just say that Osborne Village, the North End or (pick your inner city neighbourhood) already has transit service and there's no need to spend a fortune building a rapid transit line to get people home 3 minutes sooner. Hell, a lot of people said that about SW BRT.

I'm not speaking to this issue from a transit perspective or in terms of trying to justify an increase in transit presence in areas, I'm speaking in generalities now.

We all know the commute times/issues of areas we live in. If I was going to move to a new area that is lacking in services such as transit you better believe one of the first things I will look at is commute times/traffic issues/roadways to the area, etc. If you choose to move to an area that is poor at best in all those categories don't come complaining later that it takes you a few extra minutes to get there.

This is what I am saying. It has nothing to do with transit or anything other than people putting themselves in these areas and then complaining they are stuck in traffic. Oh well!

[Biff]

Originally Posted by trueviking

It is a billion dollar expansion. The bridge is 100% part of the expansion. It’s a myth that it needs to be replaced anyways. Remove the sewer, and you go from $1.2b to something slightly less than a billion.

I gotta say, I usually agree with most of what you say on here, and I know you are really passionate regarding these issues but you are wrong here. The bridge needs to be replaced. Almost all other bridges of this era have been or are in the process of replacement/planning.

This bridge work will come in depending on final design somewhere between $200m-$300m. On the cheap it will require pier strengthening and deck replacement to more expensive new bridges along new alignments.

This is from the one of the top engineering managers at the city. I first spoke to him about it in 2008.

[esquire]

^ Biff, do you know whether the southbound lanes of the St. James Bridge are the original structure from 1936, but with decking rebuilt somewhere along the way (1980s?).

If so, it starts to make sense why the bridge needs work, it's the most heavily used bridge in the province and certainly one of the older ones. Does the plan call for total replacement including piers, or just another new bridge deck?

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

The Peripherique, to use that example, is definitely not on the urban periphery of Paris. It may not run directly through the centre of town, but it definitely goes through old, built up parts of the city and even bisects neighbourhoods. If Route 90 is expanded as planned the net result from a planning standpoint will be effectively no different from what it is now... it's a stroad today, it's going to be a stroad tomorrow.

Hah, not only does Paris have the Peripherique, but the rest of the region is littered with freeways also. The same is the case in Amsterdam, Rome, Madrid, etc etc. All have freeway systems that get you close to the centres of town, all are seen as paradigms of urbanity.

I think the net result of expanding the road and creating a slightly bigger stroad is actually worse than doing nothing. I think that we need two or three proper cross-town freeways. Kenaston and Lag for sure and some form of E/W route, whatever that may be. Take the pressure off of the local streets. But it has to be done properly, and be as minimally disruptive as possible at grade level, hence trenching and semi-capping.

I think a good example of this is the Descaries in Montreal. The whole ROW is barely 200' wide. With the amount of houses already knocked down, and the planned ROW for the widening, this could easily be accomodated. I'd rather the trench and somewhat more of a connected surface neighbourhood than widening and adding lights. Let's face it, unless they literally sever that artery, people will continue using it heavily. We have to have somewhat of a practical mind about this.

Plus, with the future St Norbert Bypass lining up with Kenaston, the idea that there would be any other logical route for this traffic is absurd without forcing them to take the West Perimeter. Add the same treatment to Lag on the other side of DT and we could solve a huge portion of the downtown traffic woes and turn what are currently stroads like St Mary's back in to quieter and more urban streets.

[esquire]

The MMF is building Michif Manor on Notre Dame St., a residence for Metis people who are in Winnipeg for medical treatments at Health Sciences Centre nearby. According the news story, it will have 12 units and it will be designed along the lines of long-stay hotel rooms as opposed to full-on apartments. Project cost is $11 million.

At first glance it's nowhere near as nice and well designed as other MMF projects and proposals, but at least it does fill a longstanding gap on Notre Dame.



https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bu...ace-to-breathe

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I think a good example of this is the Descaries in Montreal. The whole ROW is barely 200' wide. With the amount of houses already knocked down, and the planned ROW for the widening, this could easily be accomodated. I'd rather the trench and somewhat more of a connected surface neighbourhood than widening and adding lights. Let's face it, unless they literally sever that artery, people will continue using it heavily. We have to have somewhat of a practical mind about this.

"Let's make Kenaston like the Decarie Expressway" is a very dismal vision. The Decarie splits neighbourhoods in 2, is a source of noise and air pollution that has deteriorated the quality of housing and retail adjacent to the expressway relative to the rest of the neighbourhood. It's been decades of Montreal politicians trying to figure out how to fix the Decarie. They often come back to a Big Dig type plan of moving the traffic underground and building parks and housing and connections between neighbourhoods above, but those always die because they're way too expensive.

There are lots of cities with expressways through the city. It's only truly unwise ones that are still adding or widening freeways. Most major cities are trying to figure out how to undo the harm of stroads and freeways, not adding new ones.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

There are lots of cities with expressways through the city. It's only truly unwise ones that are still adding or widening freeways. Most major cities are trying to figure out how to undo the harm of stroads and freeways, not adding new ones.

I am fine with undoing Kenaston as a major N/S thoroughfare and turning it into a quiet River Heights residential street. But that requires a viable alternative for all that traffic. And what do those look like? Extending William Stephenson to act as the "new" Route 90? (it just shifts the problem westward, and effectively turns Moray St. into the new Kenaston) Build a new bridge connecting Arlington to River Heights (we all know that would never happen). How many billions would it cost to build a RT network that would serve as an adequate replacement?

Let's face it, Kenaston has been bisecting that area for a long time. There is nothing in the road plan that really changes what has already been done to this point... the fundamental character of the street won't be altered. That already happened long ago.