Everything Bicycles | Winnipeg

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Winnipeg Grump

And don't forget that after they've paid the consultants to determine if this is actually a good idea (never mind that the people who've elected you have told you this is what they want, but never mind...), the CAO will then ask the admin to spend 1.5 to 2 years conducting more studies to determine what the current practices are in other jurisdictions, and then we'll have a 9-12 month period of evaluations of those same studies to determine what the 'made in Winnipeg' solution is actually going to be!

You're forgetting lengthy public consultations in there too, which as we know are necessary for solving an engineering problem.

[Winnipegger]

People complain a lot about the "study the study so we can determine if we need to do another study that studies the study so we can see if we should build the thing based on the study" mentality in Winnipeg, and people aren't necessarily wrong to be pissed off about how slowly the wheels turn here. But in my view, the study to death culture here is based on 2 massive factors:

1. The cost of democracy in a sensitive city where councilors are extra cautious in ensuring certain interest groups have their voice heard : lots of people love democracy and having their voice heard until it slows down they project they want. Politicians from all levels get dragged through the mud if one or more vocal minorities come out of the woodwork after a project moves past consultation and they haven't felt like they were adequately consulted. In todays day and age, this can be enough to cost someone their political career, especially in a sensitive little city like Winnipeg. Of course, part of democracy is ensuring our elected officials are aware of all the valid viewpoints surrounding a project or investment, and then take that information into consideration to make the best choices possible on our behalf. Like it or not, it is difficult to weigh the validity and importance of all competing opinions from the public. How do you weigh, say, the opinion of the heavy construction industry or the trucking industry against the climate action or cyclist grass roots groups? There is no cut and dry formula for this type of mental calculus.

2. Little fiscal capacity: I know I'm a broken record on this one, but we "study the study" because in Winnipeg the trade off of doing one project over another is significantly higher due to not having as much revenue (on a per-capita basis) as other cities. When doing project A means you can't do project B for several more years, but special interest groups are advocating for both, the decision becomes a lot more difficult. Most cities would not be debating adding bike lanes, or upgrading a major, busted up congested road three lanes instead of two, or renewing heavily used bridges, or whatever else we study at nauseum. But here in Winnipeg, because we artificially constrain the municipal budget, we can't even sustain our existing infrastructure let alone build new infrastructure to accommodate a growing city, so we study and study to figure out what is a priority, and then go with project A even though project A through F is needed right away. So then the plans for projects B through F sit on the shelf collecting dust even though we needed to get them done yesterday, and by the time we have enough money for project B, the city has changed so much that we have to re-study the plans because they are 10 years out of date.

It's frustrating and confusing, but its the democratic, fiscally-constrained reality we live in. If Winnipeggers collectively chose to tax themselves adequately to fund the infrastructure we needed, we wouldn't need to have so many studies. But because we don't, everything falls into one prolonged queue and by the time project 1 gets done and we have the money to do project 2, we have to restudy the whole bloody thing because project 2's plans no longer make sense.

[ColdRain&Snow]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

People complain a lot about the "study the study so we can determine if we need to do another study that studies the study so we can see if we should build the thing based on the study" mentality in Winnipeg, and people aren't necessarily wrong to be pissed off about how slowly the wheels turn here. But in my view, the study to death culture here is based on 2 massive factors:

1. The cost of democracy in a sensitive city where councilors are extra cautious in ensuring certain interest groups have their voice heard : lots of people love democracy and having their voice heard until it slows down they project they want. Politicians from all levels get dragged through the mud if one or more vocal minorities come out of the woodwork after a project moves past consultation and they haven't felt like they were adequately consulted. In todays day and age, this can be enough to cost someone their political career, especially in a sensitive little city like Winnipeg. Of course, part of democracy is ensuring our elected officials are aware of all the valid viewpoints surrounding a project or investment, and then take that information into consideration to make the best choices possible on our behalf. Like it or not, it is difficult to weigh the validity and importance of all competing opinions from the public. How do you weigh, say, the opinion of the heavy construction industry or the trucking industry against the climate action or cyclist grass roots groups? There is no cut and dry formula for this type of mental calculus.

2. Little fiscal capacity: I know I'm a broken record on this one, but we "study the study" because in Winnipeg the trade off of doing one project over another is significantly higher due to not having as much revenue (on a per-capita basis) as other cities. When doing project A means you can't do project B for several more years, but special interest groups are advocating for both, the decision becomes a lot more difficult. Most cities would not be debating adding bike lanes, or upgrading a major, busted up congested road three lanes instead of two, or renewing heavily used bridges, or whatever else we study at nauseum. But here in Winnipeg, because we artificially constrain the municipal budget, we can't even sustain our existing infrastructure let alone build new infrastructure to accommodate a growing city, so we study and study to figure out what is a priority, and then go with project A even though project A through F is needed right away. So then the plans for projects B through F sit on the shelf collecting dust even though we needed to get them done yesterday, and by the time we have enough money for project B, the city has changed so much that we have to re-study the plans because they are 10 years out of date.

It's frustrating and confusing, but its the democratic, fiscally-constrained reality we live in. If Winnipeggers collectively chose to tax themselves adequately to fund the infrastructure we needed, we wouldn't need to have so many studies. But because we don't, everything falls into one prolonged queue and by the time project 1 gets done and we have the money to do project 2, we have to restudy the whole bloody thing because project 2's plans no longer make sense.

Yeah for sure, I completely agree. I'm just expressing my frustration after someone got killed on a road that has already been identified as a future bike route.