Winnipeg | Portage and Main

[pspeid]

If we can agree on one thing, it's that this discussion will simply not go away. The "open" side (of which I count myself) has, I believe, a vision for the city that sees an attractive, walkable, livable, vibrant downtown as more than a pipe dream, but as a very real possibility for our city in the near future. The key word here is vision. The "open" side rejects the idea that the highest standard our city can reach is "convenience", and that there is some kind of virtue in setting our civic standards to the lowest common denominator. Having a vision means we are not just trying to "win" for our own gratification, but that we truly believe a "win" for "our side" will be a "win" for everyone, whether they recognize it or not. Insults, put-downs and cheap provocations will likely not change our minds on this issue.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by pspeid

If we can agree on one thing, it's that this discussion will simply not go away. The "open" side (of which I count myself) has, I believe, a vision for the city that sees an attractive, walkable, livable, vibrant downtown as more than a pipe dream, but as a very real possibility for our city in the near future. The key word here is vision. The "open" side rejects the idea that the highest standard our city can reach is "convenience", and that there is some kind of virtue in setting our civic standards to the lowest common denominator. Having a vision means we are not just trying to "win" for our own gratification, but that we truly believe a "win" for "our side" will be a "win" for everyone, whether they recognize it or not. Insults, put-downs and cheap provocations will likely not change our minds on this issue.

Totally agree. I sometimes wish there were mayoral candidates with the vision and ambition of some of the forumers here. Robert Falcon-Ouellette is the closest we've come in a long time to having someone who had a real ambitious vision for what the city could and should be.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Andy6

It’s not happening, so it’s a moot point anyway.

Oh, its happening.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by esquire

Ha. I really need to play this card more often. Anyone who doesn't confirm my pre-conceived notions is a condescending elitist asshole!

yeah, the you are not listening to me argument was so weird. Responding to gut feeling with facts was ignored and considered elitist.

'you haven't addressed traffic'
'well, here's a comprehensive traffic study'
'I don't believe what it says'

'Why not just cross 50 feet over in every direction'
'well, its actually more like 500 feet in most directions'
'I don't believe you'

[trueviking]

that vote was stupid, but opening it is on the right side of history.
It was the Baby Boomer's last gasp.
It was always inevitable that it will open. The vote just delayed it.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by trueviking

yeah, the you are not listening to me argument was so weird. Responding to gut feeling with facts was ignored and considered elitist.

'you haven't addressed traffic'
'well, here's a comprehensive traffic study'
'I don't believe what it says'

'Why not just cross 50 feet over in every direction'
'well, its actually more like 500 feet in most directions'
'I don't believe you'

The closest is 250 feet, then 350, then 480, then 700!

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by joshlemer

If you've ever been to any larger city than Winnipeg, or indeed to any other busy intersection in Winnipeg, it's really clear that Team Closed obviously does not have a leg to stand on, if their arguments are pedestrian safety and congestion.

First of all, any concerns about pedestrian safety should probably be written off as concern trolling, considering that most of team-no live way out in the suburbs and most of team-yes neighbourhoods are in walking/biking distance to the intersection. Do you really think suburban motorists are so concerned about pedestrian safety, while actual pedestrians living downtown don't care about it?

Anyways the whole thing is so ridiculous because there's nothing at all special about this one intersection from a safety or congestion perspective. Here's a CBC article listing the top 10 most busy intersections in the city. Two of them rank as more busy than P&M and every single one of them, aside from P&M, is open to pedestrians, at least partially. Even main "highway style" intersections like Sterlying Lyon and Kennaston allow pedestrians without the sky falling.

If they actually cared about pedestrian safety they would be pushing for traffic calming. Somehow I doubt the Team Closed folks are embracing the 30km speed limit idea.

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by pspeid

If we can agree on one thing, it's that this discussion will simply not go away. The "open" side (of which I count myself) has, I believe, a vision for the city that sees an attractive, walkable, livable, vibrant downtown as more than a pipe dream, but as a very real possibility for our city in the near future. The key word here is vision. The "open" side rejects the idea that the highest standard our city can reach is "convenience", and that there is some kind of virtue in setting our civic standards to the lowest common denominator. Having a vision means we are not just trying to "win" for our own gratification, but that we truly believe a "win" for "our side" will be a "win" for everyone, whether they recognize it or not. Insults, put-downs and cheap provocations will likely not change our minds on this issue.

100% agree. There's going to be talk about this for as long as the barriers are up. If it takes another 40 years to keep talking about, so be it.

The more we talk about it, the more annoying this will be. It will come to a point where both sides will get annoyed, and the only way everybody will shut up about is to take it down.

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

If they actually cared about pedestrian safety they would be pushing for traffic calming. Somehow I doubt the Team Closed folks are embracing the 30km speed limit idea.

For either side, the proposed 30 km/h speed limit is unreasonable to begin with.

How far will the speeds be reduced before we get ticketed for going over 0 km/h when we mow our lawns, or walk across the street, because Dipsh*t Daryl can't control his kid crossing the street, while ignoring basic traffic laws when riding his bike?

That leads to an entirely different conversation though.

[Biff]

^^^^ I hope not....I drive faster than 0 km/h all the time.

[1ajs]

if the city is going to do this then tey really should time the lights timed to alow traffic to flow with out having to allways stop and reward driving the speed limit with better flow vsd stop go stop go

[buzzg]

30 km/h on residential side streets is smart. No reason to ever have to go faster. You could keep it at 50 on local collectors, but anything less than that, slow the f down.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by buzzg

30 km/h on residential side streets is smart. No reason to ever have to go faster. You could keep it at 50 on local collectors, but anything less than that, slow the f down.

I can live with it, but that said, I don't think the average residential street is really much of an issue when it comes to pedestrian safety. It's the collectors, arterials and regionals that are the problem...

[buzzg]

Growing up in River Heights and now living in Norwood, the problem is though, so many people try to avoid collector streets and speed through residentials.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

if the city is going to do this then tey really should time the lights timed to alow traffic to flow with out having to allways stop and reward driving the speed limit with better flow vsd stop go stop go

Actually that is happening now as part of the TMC implementation of a few years ago.

I have also noticed on Henderson Hwy (at least the 3 signals I have to go through) if there are no vehicles sitting at the side streets at signaled intersections the lights will stay green for Henderson.

It use to be a real pain to have to stop and wait for the mechanical timers to cycle. Going to the new electronic timers a few years ago has made improvements to traffic flow as they sense if there are no vehicles waiting.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by esquire

I can live with it, but that said, I don't think the average residential street is really much of an issue when it comes to pedestrian safety. It's the collectors, arterials and regionals that are the problem...

Yeah I haven't heard of any serious collisions/deaths occurring on residential streets. Seems like intersections and crosswalks are the issue, not residential streets

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by cllew

Actually that is happening now as part of the TMC implementation of a few years ago.

I have also noticed on Henderson Hwy (at least the 3 signals I have to go through) if there are no vehicles sitting at the side streets at signaled intersections the lights will stay green for Henderson.

It use to be a real pain to have to stop and wait for the mechanical timers to cycle. Going to the new electronic timers a few years ago has made improvements to traffic flow as they sense if there are no vehicles waiting.

There are still areas where the cycle seems unchanged. I find that especially on Fermor through Southdale, the cycles seem quite rigid. I wish that one would be sensor activated especially later at night. During the rushes the cycles seem ok but there doesn't seem to be any flow through the area, suggesting that maybe timing and coordination between lights needs to be adjusted as well

[esquire]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

There are still areas where the cycle seems unchanged. I find that especially on Fermor through Southdale, the cycles seem quite rigid. I wish that one would be sensor activated especially later at night. During the rushes the cycles seem ok but there doesn't seem to be any flow through the area, suggesting that maybe timing and coordination between lights needs to be adjusted as well

Going by my gut feeling here, but Winnipeg, and Manitoba generally, seem to have exceptionally short light cycles, particularly for major streets. You really notice it when you go to the US and often side streets intersection major ones have long red sequences, such that it's often easier to turn right on a red and make a U-turn than it is to wait for a green to make a left turn.

As a driver, it is a little frustrating when 100+ cars on Route 90 will back up so that there can be a green light for the three cars on Lowson Cr. or whatever every 90 seconds. It's even worse in the winter when it takes a long time for traffic to get up to speed due to snow and ice.

It's the same thing with the Perimeter, it is practically a small miracle when you can drive through three sets of lights without having to stop. The short greens for the Perimeter really interrupts the flow.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

Going by my gut feeling here, but Winnipeg, and Manitoba generally, seem to have exceptionally short light cycles, particularly for major streets. You really notice it when you go to the US and often side streets intersection major ones have long red sequences, such that it's often easier to turn right on a red and make a U-turn than it is to wait for a green to make a left turn.

As a driver, it is a little frustrating when 100+ cars on Route 90 will back up so that there can be a green light for the three cars on Lowson Cr. or whatever every 90 seconds. It's even worse in the winter when it takes a long time for traffic to get up to speed due to snow and ice.

It's the same thing with the Perimeter, it is practically a small miracle when you can drive through three sets of lights without having to stop. The short greens for the Perimeter really interrupts the flow.

Not to mention that especially on the Perimeter, the short greens can actually be dangerous, not to mention that it's also causing extra pollution from all the big transports getting up to speed every 3 kms. We definitely have issues. I wish we could focus on Transit though for a while and try to get cars off the road. Or at least make transit attractive enough to entice people to leave their cars at home more often. That way everyone wins. Reducing volumes downtown would also make the opening of P&M a little less impactful to the naysayers.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by SJTOKO

Are you at least open to the idea of fixing P&M up and making it more.... sightly? Can you not see the benefit in that? I haven't seen the studies and reports you're referring to, but I would think....call me crazy, but fixing the link between the two areas of the city that are experiencing growth i.e. private sector investment (the forks and the exchange)... would be... A HUGE PRIORITY!

I am not closed to the idea of making changes at Portage and Main. As I have said, that one intersection and one flow of movement does not exist in a bubble. The plans that were pushed forward all acted like it was.

Eastbound traffic on Portage Ave routine backs up past Garry already and sometimes even to Donald and beyond. And not just during rush hour but most parts of the day. I worked for years in an office overlooking Portage Ave and could see the traffic at all different times of day. P&M already cannot clear the volume of traffic using it in single light cycle and the proposal is to make that situation worse?

There was talk of a report that said the change would have a significant negative impact to transit but the people at City Hall that promised they would open Portage and Main to pedestrians helped limit its distribution so that it was never made fully available to the public.

We have also had business move their offices out of downtown or choose to locate away from downtown to avoid issues like traffic and parking. Making those issues worse is not going to help downtown continue to grow. It will actually have the opposite effect.

I would hazard a guess that I have walked more downtown in total and on more different streets than most of team open. I have at times needs to routine take routes that would have me cross Portage and Main as a pedestrian and it is not the massive issue that Team Open tried to make it out to be. It is ultimately about origin and destination traffic from about four buildings: Fairmont Hotel, Richardson, Bank of Montreal and the Terratech building. Of those it is effectively the Richardson building that is the only real issue. Most of the guests at Fairmont either have a personal vehicle they could use or are attending an event that is running out of the Fairmont. The Bank of Montreal's principle tenant is BellMTS. Their downtown campus extends further south on Main St and exits directly in front of an existing pedestrian crossing of Main St. Terratech is a relatively small building and contributes minimally to the number of people downtown. That leaves the Richardson building.

Both corners on the west side of the intersection have fairly easy access to each other via the intersection at Portage and Fort.

In terms of connecting The Forks and The Exchange the reality is there is a huge void between the two with all the undeveloped land south of The Forks and east of the rail line. Having walked between those areas myself there are two pedestrian routes from the Forks to Main St before the giant void. Both those offer excellent opportunities to cross into downtown without needing to use Portage and Main. And if you are continuing onto the eastern part of the Exchange you would also not use Portage and Main. Even the western part you are much more likely to use McDermot than go to Portage and Main as it is a more pedestrian friendly street that Portage Ave E (east) will ever be even if the intersection is opened to pedestrians.

--

As you might be able to tell my opposition to the plan wasn't looked at in isolation and just maintaining the status quo out of ignorance. There are real issues that the plan needs to address first, the top of which is the impact of transit and what changes could be made to make transit a more viable choice to origin and destination traffic throughout downtown Winnipeg as a whole. On a high level my thinking is we need to get that BUS rapid transit fully built out city-wide and with routes that don't depend on keeping the status quo for Portage and Main. The rapid transit network would then also help take the pressure off the vehicle counts through the intersection and enable discussions on the merits of possible changes.

You don't build a shiny new office tower without getting the supporting foundation in place first. Opening Portage and Main to pedestrians is the same thing -- you need the supports in place before you make the changes.

Originally Posted by joshlemer

If you've ever been to any larger city than Winnipeg, or indeed to any other busy intersection in Winnipeg, it's really clear that Team Closed obviously does not have a leg to stand on, if their arguments are pedestrian safety and congestion.

You seem to be completely ignorant of how things are in other cities. Take Las Vegas, a city about the same size as Winnipeg. They aren't talking about getting rid of their grade separated pedestrian crossing, just the opposite they keep adding more of them.

As for comparing Portage and Main to other intersections in Winnipeg, how about the similar sized Kennaston and Sterling Lyon?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...kway-1.3764275