Winnipeg | Portage and Main

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Fine, you show a map of the vote but unfortunately it doesn't tell the whole story; the downtown area votes: 1377 votes for open; 1220 votes for closed; 53% is hardly overwhelming. Had the downtown vote been 80% for OPEN and 20% for CLOSED the disparity would have some relevance but it wasn't. This narrative that everyone living downtown wanted it open basically false news! Nice try though.

So I presume you would have called the result into question if it had been the same ratio of no votes? The narrative is that more people voted to open it downtown than that voted to keep it closed. The suburbs voted to keep it closed. I'm not sure what you could possibly extrapolate further from those results?

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

So I presume you would have called the result into question if it had been the same ratio of no votes? The narrative is that more people voted to open it downtown than that voted to keep it closed. The suburbs voted to keep it closed. I'm not sure what you could possibly extrapolate further from those results?

I thought the narrative was that almost everyone who lived near Portage and Main supported the idea while the people who opposed it were almost all bumpkins from the suburbs who never go anywhere near Portage and Main. Instead, the reality is that about half of downtown residents don't want it open, either. The strongest support wasn't actually downtown but rather in a few upscale residential areas.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I thought the narrative was that almost everyone who lived near Portage and Main supported the idea while the people who opposed it were almost all bumpkins from the suburbs who never go anywhere near Portage and Main. Instead, the reality is that about half of downtown residents don't want it open, either. The strongest support wasn't actually downtown but rather in a few upscale residential areas.

That's a very good point. On closer inspection, it's actually the more affluent, single-family residential inner-city neighbourhoods where support was highest. The Wolseleys, River Heights', Crescentwoods, Riverviews and Wildwood Parks.

[Bdog]

Very insightful article from Curtis Brown of Probe Research, the firm that did the poll from about 6 weeks ago.

According to their regression analysis, the single biggest argument that resonated for those who wanted the intersection open was the we should design downtown for pedestrians as well as cars. The accessibility argument in fact barely registered at all with those wanting the intersection open, which is interesting, since it seemed to be one of the most prominent arguments by Team Open.

For those that wanted it closed, the argument that resonated most was that the intersection would be unsafe for pedestrians, something that didn't seem to be brought up at all by the open campaign. Close behind were of course costs and traffic.

I wonder if Team Open had had access to this information at the time, if they would have targeted their messaging differently, or not. I also wonder whether they would have done their own internal polling, to see what arguments resonated most with voters. I get that polling is expensive, but maybe that could have been one of the items that the Go Fund Me could have raised money for. I'm still shocked that with all the business support and what's now been shown to be support from residents in more affluent neighbourhoods, that the fundraising campaign didn't manage to gain more traction.

Anyway, very interesting analysis by Mr. Brown.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Bdog

I wonder if Team Open had had access to this information at the time, if they would have targeted their messaging differently, or not. I also wonder whether they would have done their own internal polling, to see what arguments resonated most with voters. I get that polling is expensive, but maybe that could have been one of the items that the Go Fund Me could have raised money for. I'm still shocked that with all the business support and what's now been shown to be support from residents in more affluent neighbourhoods, that the fundraising campaign didn't manage to gain more traction.

Anyway, very interesting analysis by Mr. Brown.

I think their best strategy would have been to lobby behind the scenes for a referendum question that allowed for some middle-ground options between outright "yes" and outright "no".

[inlp89]

The map in this article is proof this referendum is meaningless.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...rban-1.4878309

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I thought the narrative was that almost everyone who lived near Portage and Main supported the idea while the people who opposed it were almost all bumpkins from the suburbs who never go anywhere near Portage and Main. Instead, the reality is that about half of downtown residents don't want it open, either. The strongest support wasn't actually downtown but rather in a few upscale residential areas.

Come on Andy, quit saying stuff like this, you’re wrecking the narrative for the “just open it, just because” crowd who repeatedly told us that the suburbs would kill the yes vote for downtown residents who would undoubtedly all vote yes!

With basically an even split in the downtown vote it goes to show that there are lot more pieces to the puzzle than simply opening a crossing and wishing on a star that it would somehow be the catalyst to fix downtown.

[Riverman]

Interesting thread on twitter by a guy named Scott Price about inner city neighbourhoods voting no, including my old hood of Elmwood. North End too.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Interesting thread on twitter by a guy named Scott Price about inner city neighbourhoods voting no, including my old hood of Elmwood. North End too.

Thanks for sharing!

[DavefromSt.Vital]

The New York Times notes the somewhat "quixotic" decision on Portage and Main:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/w...-and-main.html

[pspeid]

From opponents to opening P & M: "What do them New Yorkers know about traffic anyway?"

To opponents to opening P & M: "quixotic: exceedingly idealistic; unrealistic and impractical.

FYI-It wasn't a compliment.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by DavefromSt.Vital

The New York Times notes the somewhat "quixotic" decision on Portage and Main:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/w...-and-main.html

Half assed article but eludes to a study where travel times are increased 7-20 minutes if the intersection is opened to pedestrians, never heard that one!

[Mister F]

It's amusing that massive cities like New York and Tokyo can get by without banishing their pedestrians to tunnels under intersections, but somehow people think that little Winnipeg has too much traffic.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Mister F

It's amusing that massive cities like New York and Tokyo can get by without banishing their pedestrians to tunnels under intersections, but somehow people think that little Winnipeg has too much traffic.

Clearly we know something they don't. Browaty could make a fortune by becoming a private consultant and showing the Londons, New Yorks, Amsterdams and Tokyos of the world how they could really make things better, Winnipeg-style

[optimusREIM]

I'm just so confused about this entire situation. Like the new York times took note. Why would they care? The whole plebiscite is such a head scratcher that the goddam NYT had to write about it.

[Bdog]

I wonder how many forumers have been to New York recently. They'd be amazed to see that in New York's "heart", Times Square, there are bollards, jersey barriers, and larger concrete barriers everywhere. While you can cross the street there, I've never heard anyone calling those concrete barriers "ugly soviet style bunkers", etc.

Also, for our new-found accessibility advocates, I wouldn't put to much stock in NYC in that regard. It's one of the most inaccessible major cities I've ever been to. Relatively few subway stations are even accessible to those in wheelchairs, and those that are would rival crossing Portage and Main underground. Speaking of subways, it's ironic that these cities we're mentioning here all have subways as a reliable, convenient alternative to the automobile, but accessing these subway stations is basically exactly like having to go underground at P an M.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Bdog

I wonder how many forumers have been to New York recently. They'd be amazed to see that in New York's "heart", Times Square, there are bollards, jersey barriers, and larger concrete barriers everywhere. While you can cross the street there, I've never heard anyone calling those concrete barriers "ugly soviet style bunkers", etc.

The difference with Times Square is that the bollards and jersey barriers are there to block cars, not people... much of it has become completely pedestrianized in recent years.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by Bdog

New York's "heart", Times Square

you and i have different perspectives on new york 😂

Originally Posted by Bdog

accessing these subway stations is basically exactly like having to go underground at P an M.

yep -- and NYC is spending nearly $20 billion trying to start fixing that problem.

https://www.citylab.com/transportati...eserts/566471/

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Bdog

According to their regression analysis, the single biggest argument that resonated for those who wanted the intersection open was the we should design downtown for pedestrians as well as cars.

This is something Team Open seemed to heavily ignore. Things like the getting pedestrian countdown lights and better snow clearing on sidewalks downtown is going to go a lot further to improving an already very walkable downtown than opening up a single intersection.

Originally Posted by Andy6

I think their best strategy would have been to lobby behind the scenes for a referendum question that allowed for some middle-ground options between outright "yes" and outright "no".

The challenge is the plebiscite question was presented by councillors that seemed to be strongly opposed to the opening of Portage and Main. Adding a third choice along the line of "need more info" could have won the question but might ultimately be a soft "yes open it". Forcing those soft yes votes into hard yes and hard no camps pushed a lot of them into hard no as they lacked information they needed, ie a study of the impact to traffic on all of downtown that was done professionally and shared openly. The study that was somewhat public focused only on the impact to the flow through P&M.

[buzzg]

The 10 or 11 councillors and mayor that already voted yes should/could have worked better at forming the question, the issue is none of the councillors are likely survey and polling experts, so they just probably figured the Yes or No was fine and pushed it through. I doubt even Lukes and Browaty had the knowledge that making it Yes vs. No as opposed to having a third option was a benefit to them.