Kapyong Barracks Discussion

[The Jabroni]

Apparently, some people here don't understand the concept of the word concept.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by CoryB

The plan is basically southwest transitway to remove buses from Pembina which effectively expands traffic capacity of Pembina and build out William Clement as a limited access roadway from Bishop to the west side of the airport. That was proceeding nicely until some elected officials stepped in and over rode the recommendations from the professional traffic engineers employed by the city.

The other hard fact to face is if land is needed to expand Kennaston between Grant and Wilkes there are three choices to consider: the contested land on the west side, the land on the east side, or building a stacked road with through traffic perhaps moving on a raised platform like the Sky Train in Vancouver. Yes the east side and a raised platform are not "cheap" choices and the west side is the "obvious" choice but if the complexities of the west side land ownership mean that won't happen other choices need to be looked at.

I'd rather see a limited access tunnel (as in you go in at Taylor then out at the St James bridge) for through traffic than any sort of raised platform. It would completely kill the whole continuity of the neighbourhood. The tunnel would both accomplish the goal of taking through traffic off what is barely a regional street and improving flow. The method would be to cut and cover a tunnel from taylor to academy and then rebuild kenaston in more or less its current configuration on top. Access to the tunnel only on both ends, local traffic doesn't need to zip through that stretch anyways. Then the prospect of making route 90 freeflowing south of that doesn't seem unreasonably complicated and if bishop were upgraded to where it ought to be you will essentially have created a very unintrusive limited-access freeway almost all the way to the airport. Then with the extension to chief peguis and a little tlc for lagimodiere, you could essentially have a nice inner ring, without encouraging new suburbs to pop up in far flung locations.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by Pinus

It's not that they are going to love the design, it's just that they won't care enough to vocalize their opinion, despite it being a very bland and boring effort of a concept

Over on Reddit, some of the top rated comments:

"Not too shabby. Looks like this has the potential to be a very productive use of the area if it goes to plan."

"Seriously though it looks like it could be pretty nice."

"Kenaston doesn’t look any wider on that pic . If this is a success wont traffic just be unbearable?"

I'm pretty sure this is close to how the average Winnipeg voter will respond. Lots of parking, some parks, a sportsplex, and a bunch of low-density housing -- perfect, as long as there's lots of nice wide lanes to get there!

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I'd rather see a limited access tunnel (as in you go in at Taylor then out at the St James bridge) for through traffic

I don't oppose the concept of tunnels v raised roads in Winnipeg the challenge is lots of underground infrastructure was built with little regard to ever adding tunnels latter basically making it a non-starter in most places here.

I was also thinking the limited access through traffic road would be limited to the area next to the barracks site to limit the cost. I thought it was fairly well established that north of Grant has the land rights it will need to expand to six lanes. For the limited access road my vision is four lanes of through traffic and likely one lane each direction for local access traffic. Yes it would look like crap but the serious alternative is basically buying multifamily residential buildings on the east side of Kennaston to be demoed to make way for the expansion.

[The Unknown Poster]

Originally Posted by trueviking

ha ha...do they?

I was joking.

but it does make me laugh that so many people look at that and their first reaction is oh my god, I might not be able to get to IKEA as quickly!

'make life difficult' is a hilarious take on it....as if quality of life is only based on driving speed....maybe not ripping a freeway through two mature neighbourhoods and significantly affecting the quality of this development has some value?...or is that an asshole thing to say?

To be fair, Im a Vote Open guy and I want to see the city incorporate better active transportation elements. But I work in the area and what they did to Kenaston from Waverly North is ridiculous.

They should have used access roads and kept Kenaston free-flowing. The fact they have to put up ugly flashing signs warning of increased collisions shows that the area is poorly designed.

So my initial reaction when looking at the Barracks design is that it will continue to slow down traffic and create long waits when it should be allowing traffic to flow more freely. Its a truck route, no?

If there are better ideas to move North/South traffic off of Kenaston, then Im all for it. But if there isnt, then creating developments that both greatly increase traffic and cause traffic issues doesnt seem like a progressive plan. Nor does it seem safe (for drivers or pedestrians).

[Biff]

Just my observation in looking closely at the concept plan for Kapyong - to me it appears that none of the development has access to Kenaston other than through Grant or Talyor. The white road along Kenaston on the eastern fringe of the development has a solid, uninterrupted black line against Kenaston. The access points to Grant and Taylor have broken black boarders for the white roads depicting openings.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Biff

Just my observation in looking closely at the concept plan for Kapyong - to me it appears that none of the development has access to Kenaston other than through Grant or Talyor. The white road along Kenaston on the eastern fringe of the development has a solid, uninterrupted black line against Kenaston. The access points to Grant and Taylor have broken black boarders for the white roads depicting openings.

I'm assuming the white lines along Kenaston are the widened Kenaston. Hopefully that concept is just that, conceptual.

[Jammon]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I'm assuming the white lines along Kenaston are the widened Kenaston. Hopefully that concept is just that, conceptual.

So, someone please educate me as to what the "widening" actually means for Kenaston? Is the plan to buy out the existing homeowners along that stretch and demolish the homes?

[bomberjet]

Exactly that. Widen the road to 6 lanes, close some intersections, pathways, etc. They've already demolished some homes closer to Academy I think.

Latest info is here. Something like half a billion dollars with zero bridges.
https://winnipeg.ca/publicworks/cons...ute90-2018.stm

[optimusREIM]

This whole project just seems a little too garish. Widening the street wont really do all that much for the flow of traffic plus we destroy a huge number of properties and the whole neighborhoods cohesion.

[1ajs]

if the city realy needs that land why dont they just sign a 99 yr lease for it

[OTA in Winnipeg]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

This whole project just seems a little too garish. Widening the street wont really do all that much for the flow of traffic plus we destroy a huge number of properties and the whole neighborhoods cohesion.

Sure it will. It's a bottleneck currently and a 50 km zone. I assume the speed will go up to route 90 levels as well afterwards maybe with some sound barriers for the houses left behind.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

This whole project just seems a little too garish. Widening the street wont really do all that much for the flow of traffic plus we destroy a huge number of properties and the whole neighborhoods cohesion.

I don't think there's an easy way out of this situation... Route 90 is still going to be a backed-up stretch of ugly unless the city spends a fortune and buries it, which isn't going to happen.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't think there's an easy way out of this situation... Route 90 is still going to be a backed-up stretch of ugly unless the city spends a fortune and buries it, which isn't going to happen.

For once though couldn't we try doing things properly

[Jammon]

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't think there's an easy way out of this situation... Route 90 is still going to be a backed-up stretch of ugly unless the city spends a fortune and buries it, which isn't going to happen.

I agree. But there has to be some plan. With the city rapidly approaching 1 million, you need some plan for that route as it is still the main artery linking north to south. But it still doesn't deal with the the bottleneck that happens further down once you hit Linden Woods.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

For once though couldn't we try doing things properly

Spending north of a billion dollars to bury a stretch of Route 90 through River Heights doesn't make much sense considering the rest of it is similarly deficient.

[Gm0ney]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

This whole project just seems a little too garish. Widening the street wont really do all that much for the flow of traffic plus we destroy a huge number of properties and the whole neighborhoods cohesion.

Adding 50% more lane capacity will make a significant difference. It should've been done 10 years ago all the way from the St. James Bridge to Bishop Grandin.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

Spending north of a billion dollars to bury a stretch of Route 90 through River Heights doesn't make much sense considering the rest of it is similarly deficient.

Yeah but halfassing it arguably just creates different problems

[wardlow]

In the long run, more lanes on Kenaston will create additional traffic, not alleviate existing traffic. But widening or not, Kenaston is and will always be a major arterial road. There is no development project that will change this. Kenaston has been functioning as a major arterial for many decades, long before the nearby streets in River Heights and Old Tuxedo were fully built up. This was never the heart of the neighbourhood.

You might think from an urbanist perspective that widening Kenaston is a terrible idea. But maybe take a walk down Kenaston between the CN mainline and Academy Road today and see if it’s fine as-is. See if it feels safe, nevermind comfortable. See if you weren’t endlessly splashed by cars and trucks whizzing right past you. Kenaston is currently an unsafe and degrading place to be a pedestrian or transit rider, and practically an impossible place to be a cyclist.

Widening is going to happen in some capacity, at some point. Maybe advocate for that added roadway space to go to bus lanes, bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and safe and comfortable pedestrian crossings.

And it’s important to remember that Kenaston doesn’t just doesn’t carry entitled ‘but muh commute’ suburbanites, but a lot of truck transport. I know it’s not a simple either-or, but maybe having a more efficient Kenaston could justify traffic calming and limiting trucks on other nearby streets that actually have some history, suitability, and ‘good bones’ as neighbourhood streets (Academy, Corydon, and Stafford come to mind). I’m not pro-freeway, but if not Kenaston, where would should traffic go?

[scryer]

Originally Posted by trueviking

that's precisely my problem with it...

Does this area really call for anything else?

Yeah but halfassing it arguably just creates different problems

Half-assing every damn thing in this city since the 30's is what is giving us the problems we have now.

Again I feel like this proposal, minus all of the politicking and controversies, would be praised by us if it was located anywhere other than Kenaston.

In the long run, more lanes on Kenaston will create additional traffic, not alleviate existing traffic. But widening or not, Kenaston is and will always be a major arterial road. There is no development project that will change this. Kenaston has been functioning as a major arterial for many decades, long before the nearby streets in River Heights and Old Tuxedo were fully built up. This was never the heart of the neighbourhood.

You might think from an urbanist perspective that widening Kenaston is a terrible idea. But maybe take a walk down Kenaston between the CN mainline and Academy Road today and see if it’s fine as-is. See if it feels safe, nevermind comfortable. See if you weren’t endlessly splashed by cars and trucks whizzing right past you. Kenaston is currently an unsafe and degrading place to be a pedestrian or transit rider, and practically an impossible place to be a cyclist.

Widening is going to happen in some capacity, at some point. Maybe advocate for that added roadway space to go to bus lanes, bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and safe and comfortable pedestrian crossings.

And it’s important to remember that Kenaston doesn’t just doesn’t carry entitled ‘but muh commute’ suburbanites, but a lot of truck transport. I know it’s not a simple either-or, but maybe having a more efficient Kenaston could justify traffic calming and limiting trucks on other nearby streets that actually have some history, suitability, and ‘good bones’ as neighbourhood streets (Academy, Corydon, and Stafford come to mind). I’m not pro-freeway, but if not Kenaston, where would should traffic go?

x2. It's incredibly rare for me to advocate to build for traffic but Kenaston and Route 90 is one of my few exceptions for all of the reasons you mentioned.

Everything has a place in city design, and like it or not, we can't ignore vital traffic needs like we have been doing for the last century. Route 90/Kenaston/Bishop Grandin will forever be main arterials in the city.