Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure

[kaimonmok]

I think some people ought to have a read through this blog which tries to pick apart the City’s latest cost-benefit analysis for the Kenaston widening. Some snarky comments to sift through, but it certainly paints the numbers from a different perspective.

Winnipeg is in a unique position compared to other major cities where many of our major thoroughfares are in need of reconstruction, and we have the benefit of hindsight from other cities to decide how best to invest our infrastructure budget. Whatever ultimately ends up getting built will be paid for by the next several generations, and it is something we really need to consider carefully rather than resort to a gut instinct that we should add lanes and make it a limited-access freeway.

I think that the blog also makes a good point on congestion charging. We should really reconsider whether it is acceptable for everybody, including non-drivers, to fully subsidize drivers on roads, while transit users have to pay for their own fare. At the very least, it is a steady income stream for the City that can help fund other projects and doesn’t penalize the people that don’t even use the road.

[biguc]

Kenaston is a case of throwing good money after bad. The street itself is a garden-city boulevard. It should never have been pressed into service as a city-spanning highway. Ideally, it should have petered out somewhere around Taylor, sort of like Dakota and Waverley do at the ends of their respective runs.

I don't know what the city was planning (if anyone could accuse them of that) when they overbuilt the Kenaston bridge. But in a case that brilliantly illustrates induced demand, the giant, freeway-esque bridge fed by a residential boulevard and neighbourhood high street induced demand. And then the city responded by extending Kenaston, building an underpass, extending Kenaston again but even more stupidly, wondering why this unplanned city-spanning route is a disaster, and then thinking: "We need more of this!"

Somewhere along the way they also got the idea to level swathes of the West End and River Heights to build a freeway from McPhillips to Waverley (the reason that street exists in the weird form it does), but thankfully thought better of it.

The whole time that railyard between Renfrew and Lindsay managed to avoid eye contact with everyone, hoping nobody at the city would notice a clear ROW connecting major routes in the Northwest and Southwest corners of the city. And it worked! "What a great place for big box stores" the city thought, looking at land directly across the street from an end-of-life arena and stadium that would inevitably be ripped down to make way for nothing.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by kaimonmok

I think some people ought to have a read through this blog which tries to pick apart the City’s latest cost-benefit analysis for the Kenaston widening. Some snarky comments to sift through, but it certainly paints the numbers from a different perspective.

Winnipeg is in a unique position compared to other major cities where many of our major thoroughfares are in need of reconstruction, and we have the benefit of hindsight from other cities to decide how best to invest our infrastructure budget. Whatever ultimately ends up getting built will be paid for by the next several generations, and it is something we really need to consider carefully rather than resort to a gut instinct that we should add lanes and make it a limited-access freeway.

I think that the blog also makes a good point on congestion charging. We should really reconsider whether it is acceptable for everybody, including non-drivers, to fully subsidize drivers on roads, while transit users have to pay for their own fare. At the very least, it is a steady income stream for the City that can help fund other projects and doesn’t penalize the people that don’t even use the road.

I know the Dear Winnipeg guy gets a lot of attention from grass roots bike/YIMBY/green action groups, but in general he often comes across as an unqualified armchair analyst simply regurgitating the "roads bad" argument while trying to shoehorn misinterpreted numbers into his analysis to seem credible. But credit where credit is due, there has been a long-standing void of critical analysis with respect to local municipal financial and infrastructure issues and his unqualified opinion has successfully filled that void.

I too have read the cost-benefit report. It's clear that the project isn't going to result in doing much other than renewing the infrastructure in the area and alleviating some congestion. However, I've noticed some misconceptions and misinterpretations out there:

1. The whole "it will only save you 11 seconds so it's a complete waste of money" argument doesn't understand what those 11 seconds represent. Those 11 seconds represent time saved, on average, for ALL vehicles that use Kenaston in some way over a 24 hour period. This doesn't represent time saved during peak periods for vehicles going from Taylor to Ness, which would be much higher. Roughly 60 to 70 thousand cars traverse the entire length, but the appendix of the report shows the 11 seconds originates from modelling over 200,000 cars per day which means there is a lot of cross and partial traffic taken into account and their time savings drive down the average. Further, outside of peak periods the additional traffic lights will make travel times slightly worse (they aren't terrible to begin with), so that also drives down the average. There were some charts that show net time savings during different periods of the day and it was several minutes during peak periods.

2. When we say "don't widen Kenaston because it will induce demand", people forget that much of that induced demand ALREADY EXISTS, it is just taking side-streets to avoid current congestion. Winnipeg isn't Houston. We aren't adding 10 lanes to an already 8 lane road, which will just fill up immediately from a new suburb being built nearby. The area is already built up. Development isn't being stalled because Kenaston isn't wide enough. The pent up demand is mostly vehicles who are already travelling, just using less efficient routes. So when we say "don't add the lane", you are effectively telling the residents of the area along side streets like Centennial that we are okay with cars continuing to use their neighborhood residential street as a throughfare because we are afraid of adding the additional lane for "reasons".

3. Whether we like what Kenaston has turned into or not in terms of being a major road in an urban area, the ship has sailed for trying to make it free flowing. The cost of turning this area into a limited access freeway would be astronomical given the tight right of way and cost of property acquisition for an even bigger right of way. In the case, the costs would FAR exceed the benefits. What is presented in the preliminary design is a somewhat balanced proposition based on the limited fiscal capacity of our city, desire from citizens to NOT have an actual freeway within the city (nor the money to do so), but also needing something to enhance capacity and absorb the demand generated by the Nawaii Oodena development.

In most cities, we wouldn't be having this debate. The road would be widened while we fixed the existing road, bridges, and sewers. The road was built to 1980 capacity and the city has grown by 200,000 people since then. This road is a major link to the St. James industrial area which contains thousands of jobs, many in logistics and aerospace, and its a major link to the Airport.

Yes, we are getting a raw deal on the cost of this project. It's ridiculously expensive and we should be asking why we have to pay so much on a per lane km basis in this city for new roads. But that's a different issue. The point still stands that this road is under capacity and needs to be expanded, and failing to do so continues to put pressure on residential side streets and creates frustration among hundreds of thousands of users every day.

Oh, and let's not forget: if we don't add the lane, when it comes time to rehab the existing 2 lane road, it will go down to 1 lane during construction season. Given how congested it currently is, there is going to be some serious pain when one whole lane gets taken out of commission.

[EdwardTH]

^ Lots of good points and I generally agree that this isn't what SHOULD have been done with Kenaston if you went back a few decades and started from scratch, but it is what it is now.

However,

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

The point still stands that this road is under capacity and needs to be expanded, and failing to do so continues to put pressure on residential side streets and creates frustration among hundreds of thousands of users every day.

A very similar argument could be made about our entire transit system, which affects drivers as well as transit users. Every extra dollar that goes to this project isn't going to things like transit. So it's still a question of priorities. We seem to have no problem looking at our underfunded and wildly inadequate transit system and saying "Oh well, it'll have to do for now." If we had our priorities straight we could do that for Kenaston instead and start funding transit properly. But we'll just keep neglecting it and throwing more money at roads I guess because that has worked so well for us so far.....

[michelleb]

It's easy, the perfect solution would be for the city to tap into federal funding for Kenaston by dedicating the extra lanes to BRT-only lanes.

I can dream, right?

[WinCitySparky]

^ It’s the obviously intelligent solution which means it will never happen in this city as long as we have the cast of mostly-miscreants that are current council

[optimusREIM]

For people who think that converting roads to freeways would create havoc, I think that this example is the sort of thing that could work well for most of the access points to roadways like Kenaston, Lag, Bishop, CPT, etc.
• Video Link
Compact, slow for cross traffic, safe for cyclists and pedestrians. Make the ROW wide enough to add a transitway down the middle, it would work fine. I did some rough calculations on the roadway and ROW width in Carmel, IN, and the roadway almost exclusively fits within a 100ft wide ROW, except at intersections where the dumbell/boneshaped roundabouts are, where the area needed does not exceed about 150ft in many instances.

I know we are broke, but this seems fairly sensible and would really improve things. No more lanes for Kenaston, just close access points and add a couple of these:

[bomberjet]

I struggle with trying to discuss this point. The Province and City have an issue (an issue IMO) with the road classifications and standards that are applied to those classifications.

For example, in that image the ramps run parallel to the main lines, maybe separated by a wall/barrier. That will not fly with the Province/City as it does not meet their standards for off ramps. And they seem unwilling to deviate.

So you get these plans cooked up that require demolishing long stretches of property (take the Archibald/Marion interchange for example) or pushing ramps and then adjacent access roads extremely far out.

On Kenaston, the city could put in SPUI's at a few locations and make it work like you mentioned. But they are disinterested in doing that. In all the documentation for kenaston, did they ever mention that a freeway was looked at? I really didn't have the time recently to read the reports in detail.

I just think both parties do a terrible job at planning these types of things. Such as MTI's desire for the r-cut at PTH 5. What a disgrace.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I struggle with trying to discuss this point. The Province and City have an issue (an issue IMO) with the road classifications and standards that are applied to those classifications.

For example, in that image the ramps run parallel to the main lines, maybe separated by a wall/barrier. That will not fly with the Province/City as it does not meet their standards for off ramps. And they seem unwilling to deviate.

So you get these plans cooked up that require demolishing long stretches of property (take the Archibald/Marion interchange for example) or pushing ramps and then adjacent access roads extremely far out.

On Kenaston, the city could put in SPUI's at a few locations and make it work like you mentioned. But they are disinterested in doing that. In all the documentation for kenaston, did they ever mention that a freeway was looked at? I really didn't have the time recently to read the reports in detail.

I just think both parties do a terrible job at planning these types of things. Such as MTI's desire for the r-cut at PTH 5. What a disgrace.

Those points are not lost on me at all. I am surprised to learn that they are so rigid with their standards for ramps. It works in other jursidictions, why not here? The archibald thing is a perfect example of the absurdities that are yielded when we use quasi-rural design in tight urban areas. When I say that we need freeways, I do not envision giant rural highways that have 500yard ROWs, I picture things like the above, or I picture the Boulevard Peripherique de Paris, or even this one in Glasgow.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@55.86550...5409&entry=ttu

The SPUI thing is in fact what i picture on Kenaston. I would even go so far as to say the roadway should be sunken down a little and retaining walls used. The road should be as discrete and uninterruptive as possible the the surrounding neighbourhood. Lots of big cities have these, especially in Europe, and if you weren't right above it on a bridge, you wouldn't even know that the road was there.

And yes, that RCUT contemplated for TCH/PTH5 is a disgrace. I think a jurisdictional issue is part of the problem (I would want the major crosstown roads that link to PTHs to simply be the province's responsibility) but also, as you point out, the design standards of not allowing fairly standard urban road infrastructure is a bit puzzling and forces us to live with crappy road networks or demolish neighbourhoods.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by biguc

Kenaston is a case of throwing good money after bad. The street itself is a garden-city boulevard. It should never have been pressed into service as a city-spanning highway. Ideally, it should have petered out somewhere around Taylor, sort of like Dakota and Waverley do at the ends of their respective runs.

Until very recently, Waverley crossed the Perimeter, and went through LaBarriere Park. Dakota will eventually flyover the Perimeter Highway, when the city has the funding to do so.

Somewhere along the way they also got the idea to level swathes of the West End and River Heights to build a freeway from McPhillips to Waverley (the reason that street exists in the weird form it does), but thankfully thought better of it.

Are you sure? This is the first I have heard of this plan. Although I would be curious to see the plan, as that would have been terrible for the city. I know that they wanted to drive a freeway through the East Exchange/Forks and Whittier Park in the 60s, but thankfully other than Disraeli, plans were never implemented.

The whole time that railyard between Renfrew and Lindsay managed to avoid eye contact with everyone, hoping nobody at the city would notice a clear ROW connecting major routes in the Northwest and Southwest corners of the city. And it worked! "What a great place for big box stores" the city thought, looking at land directly across the street from an end-of-life arena and stadium that would inevitably be ripped down to make way for nothing.

Even though you have your rail lines mixed up (the line you are thinking of, runs West of the rail line on Lindsay)I agree with you on this point. The city missed a golden opportunity to convert the old rail line east of Centennial Street, continuing north parallel to St.James Street into a designated bus lane/ cycling trail.

[biguc]

^While I agree that that's how it should be done, you absolutely do know that the highway is there in European cities. Nobody wants to live next to roaring traffic and pollution. Find a highway and you find a bad part of town, even if it seems nice by North American standards.

Anyway, in Kenaston's case it's extra crazy we couldn't do that, since that's basically what exists at Portage. Realistically, few parts of the inner ring road will ever reach interstate highway standards without closing lots of major crossings and all minor access points. A lower-speed freeway is, however, possible and preferable for all the reasons you gave and more. It might cost more to build but land acquisition and opportunity costs would be lower.

A narrow, trenched highway is basically the only way to deal with Route 90 north of Silver, if we do ever deal with it.

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

Until very recently, Waverley crossed the Perimeter, and went through LaBarriere Park. Dakota will eventually flyover the Perimeter Highway, when the city has the funding to do so.

Interesting re: Dakota. I don't know that anyone on either side of the Perimeter would want that, but an AT connection down to Duff Roblin Trail would be nice.

I remember Waverley crossing the perimeter. That it's been downgraded is my point: Kenaston should have remained a residential boulevard. Looking at old maps, by 1985 the city had already sealed its fate by 1. extending it southward to its eventual meeting point with Bishop, and 2. shifting it eastward so it's too close to Waverley to allow high-speed interchanges on both.

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

Are you sure? This is the first I have heard of this plan. Although I would be curious to see the plan, as that would have been terrible for the city. I know that they wanted to drive a freeway through the East Exchange/Forks and Whittier Park in the 60s, but thankfully other than Disraeli, plans were never implemented.

I remember reading an old article from the Free Press or Tribune on exactly that. Unfortunately, I can't search the FP archives. I couldn't turn anything up in the Tribune archives either, but I did find some interesting commentary from Val Werier on plans at the time. It's funny how some discussions we have today go back to the '60s. There's a good article
here on how the city got fleeced by Trizec on the Portage and Main deal, and it doesn't even talk about closing the intersection to pedestrians. It's also interesting seeing how the Spadina freeway plan in Toronto captured the public's attention across the country.

Anyway, the plan you refer to is Wilbur Smith's plan from the '50s. It would have decimated the city as we know it.

In the '60s, the city started working on the Winnipeg Area Transport Study, an early draft of which I believe is my source on the Waverley-McPhillips connector. The best proof I can find is this picture from the third draft of WATS, which shows the connector as a major arterial road rather than a freeway. However, this also shows the Inkster extension as an arterial, which I believe many people also remember as a freeway



You'll notice that the inner ring road originated with this plan. We're still waiting. If you look closely, you'll also see that the East Exchange is all-but entirely destroyed, while the Forks was slated to become a freeway connector between the Disraeli and Pembina, and an east-west freeway would have mostly avoided the Exchange but decimated Wittier park.

Also weird: they planned to smash through West Osborne Village at Nassau to connect to Balmoral and Colony, and to smash the Churchill drive waterfront and a swath of Old St Vital to connect Grant to Elizabeth.

The North End takes double damage from a new freeway at Arlington and a major arterial right next to it.

With respect to Kenaston, this map shows its eventual extension to meet Bishop, even using the stupid alignment it took, but no further extension south and no other improvements. North-South routes were supposed to be the Waverley-McPhillips connector and the Charleswood Parkway decimating Sturgeon Creek on its path northward.

I'd love to spend more time combing through archives to find the article I mentioned, but I have actual work to do today

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

Even though you have your rail lines mixed up (the line you are thinking of, runs West of the rail line on Lindsay)I agree with you on this point. The city missed a golden opportunity to convert the old rail line east of Centennial Street, continuing north parallel to St.James Street into a designated bus lane/ cycling trail.

I completely agree about the rail line next to Centennial. It's particularly egregious that they allowed the CrappyTyre and Best Buy developments to block what would have been an easy airport spur from a Portage ave rapid transit line. Same with the space to the south. I know the city was in a tough spot circa Y2K, but it reminds me of the cases from strongtowns, where a town gets excited about tax revenue from big box developments, but it just cannibalizes their existing tax base and hollows out the town centre. Eventually they let a Taco Bells and shit level blocks of rundown Main st. buildings for drive thrus, further reducing their tax base.

It's not directly analogous because Winnipeg wasn't a small town held over a barrel by a big company (which almost makes it sadder) but it speaks to the short-term thinking that's starved the city long-term opportunities.

Anyway, I am talking about the yards next to Lindsay, which connect to the line parallel to Empress. Back in the '90s along Empress, there was a derelict velodrome, fuck, and all. The city let the land go for the Home Depot and Indigo or whatever crap is there now. If they were to build a north-south freeway in that area, that's where it should have gone. I think it's crazy nobody ever even thought of it.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by biguc

Interesting re: Dakota. I don't know that anyone on either side of the Perimeter would want that, but an AT connection down to Duff Roblin Trail would be nice.

I'll just chime in on this one piece, there used to be a sign at Aldgate and Dakota's southern terminus from the River Park South developer that touted an eventual connection to Perimeter.

It's since been removed, but google maps has it archived:

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8052...5410&entry=ttu

The sign predated the South Perimeter study so I don't know if there were actual approved plans with MTI to connect Dakota to Perimeter when the neighbourhood was approved, either in a full intersection or just a RIRO, or if the developers were just hoping it would happen. Maybe someone can dig through the archives in the DMIS.

Either way, glad it isn't happening, but it's also nice there's the option of a flyover whenever the area south of the perimeter gets developed, as this would reduce volume on the St Anne's and St Mary's interchanges.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by biguc

I am talking about the yards next to Lindsay, which connect to the line parallel to Empress. Back in the '90s along Empress, there was a derelict velodrome, fuck, and all. The city let the land go for the Home Depot and Indigo or whatever crap is there now. If they were to build a north-south freeway in that area, that's where it should have gone. I think it's crazy nobody ever even thought of it.

That would have been a terrible idea. For one thing, Lindsay is in the middle of residential River Heights, and over 40 years ago, they built homes on the West side of the street, north of Corydon. To think of the land metres away being converted from old rail yards to a Freeway is insane.

For starters, there is no sound barrier between Lindsay and Renfrew, so the residents would be up in arms. Additionally, it would have destroyed the footbridge cyclists and pedestrians use, connecting River Heights to Polo Park, a. It would have also razednot to mention the neighbourhood. US Cities learned this was a bad idea in the 60s. Omand's Park. The area was also pretty much developed already north of St.Matthews (the Polo Park Inn and the bowling alley had been there for decades).

However, the main problem with constructing a freeway there, is the Omand's Creek area just north of the Assiniboine River. This is the main reason there was never much development near Empress (until the awful box stores and parking lots were built). It's bad enough they built box stores across the creek, but a freeway? I'm actually shocked that you think that would be a "good idea." Nobody ever thought of putting a freeway there, since it would have been one of the most disastrous projects in Winnipeg history.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by WildCake

Either way, glad it isn't happening, but it's also nice there's the option of a flyover whenever the area south of the perimeter gets developed, as this would reduce volume on the St Anne's and St Mary's interchanges.

It would have made no sense to build a flyover when the land south of the Perimeter is barren. However, I can see that land in St.Vital between the perimeter and the Floodway being built-up eventually.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

That would have been a terrible idea. For one thing, Lindsay is in the middle of residential River Heights, and over 40 years ago, they built homes on the West side of the street, north of Corydon. To think of the land metres away being converted from old rail yards to a Freeway is insane.

For starters, there is no sound barrier between Lindsay and Renfrew, so the residents would be up in arms. Additionally, it would have destroyed the footbridge cyclists and pedestrians use, connecting River Heights to Polo Park, a. It would have also razednot to mention the neighbourhood. US Cities learned this was a bad idea in the 60s. Omand's Park. The area was also pretty much developed already north of St.Matthews (the Polo Park Inn and the bowling alley had been there for decades).

However, the main problem with constructing a freeway there, is the Omand's Creek area just north of the Assiniboine River. This is the main reason there was never much development near Empress (until the awful box stores and parking lots were built). It's bad enough they built box stores across the creek, but a freeway? I'm actually shocked that you think that would be a "good idea." Nobody ever thought of putting a freeway there, since it would have been one of the most disastrous projects in Winnipeg history.

Don't get me wrong, I agree it's a bad idea. I don't think I ever said "good idea", and I'm entirely opposed to urban freeway construction. My only point is that in the '60s it was a better location for a freeway than Waverley or Kenaston, both of which are more residential and would require more demolition than the Lindsay-Empress railyard route.

You're right about Omand's Creek, but given that the WATS plan involved destroying Sturgeon Creek, I don't think protecting creeks was on any planner's mind in the '60s. I'd prefer to see creeks protected. I'd also like to see the downtown creeks, Colony and Ross, daylighted.

I also hope that one day the Lindsay-Empress rail line is part of a regional rail network. That would be far more valuable and less disruptive than any roadway through the West End and River Heights.

[Authentic_City]

The old CN Oak Point subdivision (the line by St. James and through River Heights would have been ideal for rapid transit and active transit, but former River Heights City Counselor Garth Steek personally saw to it that sections were sold off in River Heights for housing and retail to block the development. The city also stupidly sold off the rail bridge for a condo development that never happened. Now we have an abandoned bridge and no possibility of a transit/AT corridor. Really dumb.

The other River Heights rail line and yard (Lindsay St.) is pretty much the entirety of BNSF Manitoba's operations, so I doubt it would ever be sold off or redeveloped. But yeah, it's odd to have in the middle of River Heights.

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

The old CN Oak Point subdivision (the line by St. James and through River Heights would have been ideal for rapid transit and active transit, but former River Heights City Counselor Garth Steek personally saw to it that sections were sold off in River Heights for housing and retail to block the development. The city also stupidly sold off the rail bridge for a condo development that never happened. Now we have an abandoned bridge and no possibility of a transit/AT corridor. Really dumb.

The other River Heights rail line and yard (Lindsay St.) is pretty much the entirety of BNSF Manitoba's operations, so I doubt it would ever be sold off or redeveloped. But yeah, it's odd to have in the middle of River Heights.

Your comments highlight one of the major weaknesses of a ward system for municipalities. Ward councillors develop their own fiefdoms and make decisions for their ward; not for the municipality as a whole. Having councillors elected at large or a mixed system with ward and at-large councillors would be a better system for Winnipeg and would eliminate the stasis (and bad decisions) which seems to exist in the city around development and transportation.

[Authentic_City]

^Interesting point, I hadn't thought of it that way. Parochialism is certainly a big problem with the current system of city government. I would worry that an at-large system would give too much power to suburban voters and interests (as we saw with the Portage and Main plebiscite). Maybe a mixed system might work?

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

^Interesting point, I hadn't thought of it that way. Parochialism is certainly a big problem with the current system of city government. I would worry that an at-large system would give too much power to suburban voters and interests (as we saw with the Portage and Main plebiscite). Maybe a mixed system might work?

That is a good point. A well organized and large enough constituency could gain an undue influence on power. Vancouver has an at-large system and traditionally, it has been an westside/eastside divide there; with municipal parties aligned with their provincial brethren. On the other side of the country, St. John's has a mixed system where there are 5 ward councillors; 4 at-large councillors, mayor, and deputy mayor positions elected by voters.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

The old CN Oak Point subdivision (the line by St. James and through River Heights would have been ideal for rapid transit and active transit, but former River Heights City Counselor Garth Steek personally saw to it that sections were sold off in River Heights for housing and retail to block the development. The city also stupidly sold off the rail bridge for a condo development that never happened. Now we have an abandoned bridge and no possibility of a transit/AT corridor. Really dumb.

The other River Heights rail line and yard (Lindsay St.) is pretty much the entirety of BNSF Manitoba's operations, so I doubt it would ever be sold off or redeveloped. But yeah, it's odd to have in the middle of River Heights.

Slight correction in your post

the Oak Point bridge and the approaches at each end were bought from CN Rail by then local architect Alec Katz. City of Winnipeg apparently never had any interest in buying it so CN was happy to get rid of the liability of the river crossing.

Mr. Katz apparently now resides in Victoria BC and in a 2009 Free Press interview said he would be more than happy to sell the bridge if somebody made him a reasonable offer.

In that interview he also mentioned that the bridge and wood approach spans were probably not insured properly for liability.