^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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.