Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

People complain about things they don't value. A good way to set the value of something at zero is to give it way. This isn't any different than the Free Press putting up a paywall. Once you've given it away, the horse is out of the barn. You can't convince people that no changes mean increased value. Things don't work that way.

The case with what the Winnipeg Free Press is charging is different, consider the following:

Winnipeg Free Press - $16.99 per month
New York Times, one of the premier daily local papers across the global - $16.25/month
Toronto Star - one of the best local daily papers in Canada - $9.99/month
Next Issue - includes Newsweek, Maclean's, Time, Bloomberg Business and others, $14.99/month

Is the value justified for the Winnipeg Free Press compared to other pay to read news sources, definitely not. If the WFP was asking $5/month for unlimited digital access that would be a different story. I am not sure what price in the middle is the tipping point though.

...

Back to roads & infrastructure though, the issue with the current Active Transportation plan is it is being done in isolation. Winnipeg needs a comprehensive transportation plan that looks at active, mass transit and vehicle traffic as a whole and comes up with a vision on how we get from where we are to where we would ideally be in 20 years.

On the transit forum people are saying we should take out a lane of vehicle traffic on Portage Ave and make a transit only lane. Elsewhere people are saying that there should be a dedicated bike path down Portage without looking at transit implications. This is the sort of approach that got us into the mess we currently have which is why we need to look at the entire system and not just each mode of transportation in isolation. I think this is, in part, why Browaty et all object to the current active transportation plan.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I think this is, in part, why Browaty et all object to the current active transportation plan.

I think this is just their excuse for objecting to something they don't want.

[rypinion]

If you were looking at all modes of transportation together (instead of in isolation) and rationally considering the cost/benefit analysis of each mode then we'd be replacing car lanes with AT lanes all over the place - way more extreme then the current plan being debated.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Look up Browaty's Facebook page, it is extremely active. He spends a huge amount of time speaking to his constituents. Door to door is a thing of the past.

This report was just released, how could it have possibly be part of anybody's platform?

The report may have just been released, but it seems to me, they are more concerned with money being spent on "active transportation" rather than going towards the repair and maintenance of existing roads and sidewalks.

"Their overriding theme is that the $334 million in costs outlined in the strategy is too much when Winnipeg’s roads are crumbling".

What I was alluding to is if their election platform was road maintenance versus new bike paths, etc. When the report was released doesn't seem to matter in terms of the overall picture here. I think it is obvious to anyone with grey matter between their ears what these guys are opposed to, accusations of conflict of interest and complaints to APEGM aside.

I just take issue when someone claims to be acting on the behest of their constituents on specific issues, if that is clearly not the case, and basically impossible to prove one way or another.

What really baffles me is that for every one person you can encourage to ride a bike, or walk, or take a bus along a BRT route - this is one less car on the road contributing to traffic, road deterioration, etc. Road maintenance is just that. Maintenance. It's never going away, and it's never going to be cheaper, regardless of how many bike lanes are around. Roads will last longer if you reduce the wear and tear. Encouraging people to do something other than drive will help that.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by CoryB

The case with what the Winnipeg Free Press is charging is different, consider the following:

Winnipeg Free Press - $16.99 per month
New York Times, one of the premier daily local papers across the global - $16.25/month
Toronto Star - one of the best local daily papers in Canada - $9.99/month
Next Issue - includes Newsweek, Maclean's, Time, Bloomberg Business and others, $14.99/month

Is the value justified for the Winnipeg Free Press compared to other pay to read news sources, definitely not. If the WFP was asking $5/month for unlimited digital access that would be a different story. I am not sure what price in the middle is the tipping point though.

I'll remind you that all of those you mention have had a mostly unsuccessful go at putting that horse back in the barn. The Toronto Star is now free again, the New York Times still relies almost entirely on hard copy subscription revenue with a paywall so soft any child can navigate it, and the others are essentially being given away anyway. I can get anything I want from Newsweek, Macleans, or Bloomberg for free so long as I'm willing to go to the site. The interesting thing is that the Financial Times started with a hard paywall and they've thrived by never giving it away...

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by drew

"Their overriding theme is that the $334 million in costs outlined in the strategy is too much when Winnipeg’s roads are crumbling".



I just take issue when someone claims to be acting on the behest of their constituents on specific issues, if that is clearly not the case, and basically impossible to prove one way or another.

Well if it walks like a duck...

Doesn't matter if you believe it or not or how many people you call stupid. Perhaps the good people of North Kildonan get a little annoyed when they notice the $50MM active transportation bridge goes largely unused while they dodge bicycles on the roadway. They see those millions being pissed away because of a seemingly powerful lobby of a tiny number of citizens.

And their councillor appears to be acting on their behalf. Is that strange to you?

[drew]

Originally Posted by Riverman

They see those millions being pissed away because of a seemingly powerful lobby of a tiny number of citizens.

And their councillor appears to be acting on their behalf. Is that strange to you?

What lobby? How many people? How many people in North Kildonan care one way or the other? If you are claiming to be "acting on behalf of your constituents", in my view, you sure as shit better be able to back that up.

If they really care that much, why aren't the good people of North Kildonan protesting in the streets in defense of their embattled Councillor, especially since his delay tactic failed?

I would argue those with extreme views on either side of this debate are in the minority, the vast majority (or silent majority if you will) just want them to get on with it.

[esquire]

^ Kind of like how during the municipal election, CJOB and the Sun are always stoking the anti-rapid transit flames. Yet the anti-rapid transit mayoral candidate ended up getting his ass handed to him.

People are not quite as polarized as we think on transportation issues... there is recognition of the importance of AT and transit, even among people who don't necessarily use it.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Oh so he's being stiff armed by the Facebook class.

It's actually kind of funny. Facebook has a much older user base than Twitter, and all too often important political decisions are made by/for people who are much older and are likely to deal with the impacts of decisions for a much shorter time then younger people. Things that happen in the future should be tuned to people who will use them, which is why every year younger politicians are being elected.

So in summary, Twitter should have more weight than Facebook. The end.

The problem is that those same old people on facebook who follow Browaty, they are the ones that actually mobilize and vote -- the young "twitter" generation aren't his, or anyone's base (or at least, anyone who wants to win).

Ideal situation compared to reality. Ideally, those young "twitter class" people would be in control becaue they have the most to lose. In reality it's not them, it's the old who vote.

[snowmobile]

People who drive everywhere are starting to realize that AT and BRT are good things that keep the roads in better shape and safer. Think how many people would bike downtown if there was a dedicated bike lane with no stops from each section of the city.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by drew

If you are claiming to be "acting on behalf of your constituents", in my view, you sure as shit better be able to back that up.

This is so laughable. This is why the position exists. He proved he was acting for his constituants when he took the title Councillor for North Kildonan.

Fuck.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Riverman

This is so laughable. This is why the position exists. He proved he was acting for his constituants when he took the title Councillor for North Kildonan.

Fuck.

Got to agree with River here, Browaty is my Councillor and I personally believe he is great!

PS River, back from a self imposed exile? Nice to see you back as one of the voices of reason around here!

[esquire]

I was wondering where Riverman went; there was getting to be a little too much consensus around here

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by drew

The report may have just been released, but it seems to me, they are more concerned with money being spent on "active transportation" rather than going towards the repair and maintenance of existing roads and sidewalks.

I'm most interested to see how consistently they oppose new infrastructure until existing infrastructure is brought up to the standard they see fit. By the 'logic' that they are using, they should oppose the Peguis extension, and the Waverley and Marion underpasses as well. And Wyatt should have opposed the Plessis underpass. In fact, that project has proven that you don't need Plessis Road at all, given that the street has been closed for 2 years with no carpocalypse yet.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by TimeFadesAway

I'm most interested to see how consistently they oppose new infrastructure until existing infrastructure is brought up to the standard they see fit. By the 'logic' that they are using, they should oppose the Peguis extension, and the Waverley and Marion underpasses as well. And Wyatt should have opposed the Plessis underpass. In fact, that project has proven that you don't need Plessis Road at all, given that the street has been closed for 2 years with no carpocalypse yet.

Dear god, don't say that around here... Rail underpasses are sacrosanct. We are lucky that they are doing a diversion for when the Waverley underpass gets built, or else we might find the same thing.

And just think of all the traffic chaos when we closed the Disraeli bridge. I think the GDP of the whole city dropped by over 5% during the time it was closed.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Riverman

This is so laughable. This is why the position exists. He proved he was acting for his constituants when he took the title Councillor for North Kildonan.

Fuck.

All you need to do is point me to something that shows Browaty ran for council on a platform that included opposition to this issue, and for which he was voted in on.

If you can, I'll shut up.

If you can't, I think you can agree I have a reasonable point.

Just because you were voted in as a Councillor doesn't make each of your following decisions the view of your constituency.

It's such a vague, shitty phrase that irks me.

[CoryB]

If council was proposing a new expressway that only cars will use, no buses or bikes allowed, which cost $334 million and would only be used six months out of the year I would hope every councillor would be asking some hard questions about that plan. This is exactly what is happening with the active transportation plan.

If we have only $334 million to spend do we put it on new roads, repairing old roads, rapid transit or active transportation, and if you are splitting it what is the split and where is the study that backs picking one over the other?

Throw in a mix of people with different personal biases contacting you constantly to push their point of view on the subject ahead of the others. That is a sense of what it is like to make decision on council, especially when it is a time of relative fiscal constraint.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Well if it walks like a duck...

Doesn't matter if you believe it or not or how many people you call stupid. Perhaps the good people of North Kildonan get a little annoyed when they notice the $50MM active transportation bridge goes largely unused while they dodge bicycles on the roadway. They see those millions being pissed away because of a seemingly powerful lobby of a tiny number of citizens.

And their councillor appears to be acting on their behalf. Is that strange to you?

Well if it didn't get built at all there would be even MORE people using the vehicle bridge, that would be worse. Plus the city was smart, economical, and environmental by reusing parts of the old bridge. Assuming you are correct in your anecdotal saying no one uses it (which in my anecdotal observation isn't true) than maybe that's because the proper connections to areas people want to go haven't been created yet... they're part of this strategy Browaty's against.

And also, he's acting on behalf of the vocal constituents he chooses to point out, that align with his views. I'm sure there are many (vocal) people who also disagree with him. And I'm not limiting this to him, every politician does it, that's how politics works, it's just incorrect to say he's acting on behalf when you're only hearing constituents on one side of the argument in all the related articles.

Originally Posted by snowmobile

People who drive everywhere are starting to realize that AT and BRT are good things that keep the roads in better shape and safer. Think how many people would bike downtown if there was a dedicated bike lane with no stops from each section of the city.

I agree, my parents and there friends are conservative, would never use transit as is now and used to very against RT and AT (spending), now they see the benefits to people, and in terms of safety to drivers, and are actually looking at getting bikes to start biking more places in summer. Taking the bomber park and rides I think was the eye opener for them that "hmm... maybe we don't need to drive everywhere"

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by CoryB

If council was proposing a new expressway that only cars will use, no buses or bikes allowed, which cost $334 million and would only be used six months out of the year I would hope every councillor would be asking some hard questions about that plan. This is exactly what is happening with the active transportation plan.

If we have only $334 million to spend do we put it on new roads, repairing old roads, rapid transit or active transportation, and if you are splitting it what is the split and where is the study that backs picking one over the other?

Throw in a mix of people with different personal biases contacting you constantly to push their point of view on the subject ahead of the others. That is a sense of what it is like to make decision on council, especially when it is a time of relative fiscal constraint.

All true.

It's so funny that opponents keep referring to the $334m number event though that's over 20 YEARS, peanuts in terms of annual budget for the benefit it will provide Winnipeggers. Plus, each project has to get individually approved... this whole thing is ridiculous.

[Wpg transit 163-1]

Just heard on ctv news that a deal has been reached with the city, province and ottawa to build an underpass at waverley and taylor. A press conference will happen tmr i will update with more info as it becomes available.