HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1281  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2015, 3:50 PM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 11,678
That actually does make perfect sense. It would help open up the stockyards to development too.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1282  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2015, 5:12 PM
snowmobile snowmobile is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 156
Would Archbald and Marion still be bottlenecked with that new road though? Seems like that intersection is there main target.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1283  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2015, 5:38 PM
cllew cllew is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
Is there a reason the Marion/Dugald alignment doesn't go to the south through the old, mostly vacant, old Stock Yard lands after Archibald? This alignment could meet up with Lag around Dawson Rd and have an interchange there. The east-west route could then continue to the east just south of the water plant and hook back into Dugald around Mazenod. No?

This would seem to preserve the existing neighbourhood and improve the flow on both the east-west route and Lag. It seems like such an obvious idea I know I must have missed a huge issue. Can anyone help me out?

Other than the city would be buying back land that it owned at one time it might work.

This time the land owner is Canad Inns owner Leo Ledohowski who bought it in 2007 when he was going to build a stadium for the Bombers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1284  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2015, 10:52 AM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Back from the dead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,508
The interchange part of the plan actually is the smartest and cheapest option IF the rail line itself can't be moved about 100 meters to the east (which I don't understand why they can't do that)

If you're familiar with the neighbourhood then you know that an underpass under the railway alone isn't feasible as the gradient would be too steep. So you'd have to have an underpass also going under Archibald but you'd still have to allow access to it. If you don't build the interchange then you simply pass the problem on to some other thoroughfare.

Having said that, the only truly necessary grade separation would be from northbound Archibald to westbound Marion. You still have to take out businesses in that case but far fewer.

As for the question of there being more important intersections in the city, the answer to that can be found right on Google Earth. Just open it up, click on the most recent update and take a look for yourself. Traffic is backed up all the way to Youville Street on Marion. Looks to be about 3 or 4 in the afternoon. Fermor, Bishop, Lag, also get snarls but they clear much more quickly.

Yes, it's unfortunate and of course there are better solutions. The pertinent point is whether there are better solutions the city can afford. So once more for the cheap seats IF the railway itself can't be moved for whatever reason then an interchange makes the most sense.
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1285  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2015, 2:26 PM
Auror Auror is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 127
I agree that Marion and Archibald needs to be dealt with. I live in Windsor Park, and it's one of the worst nightmares I've had to drive through since living in 4 different locations. Trying to turn left from Archibald onto Marion can easily range from 5 minutes to 40 minutes. Traffic can be backed up past Elizabeth at times. Especially during winter.

Same for the afternoons, Northbound Marion can be backed up all the way to St Mary's. Yes, that far.

But I do have concerns, Archibald crossing shouldn't be a free flow, Marion should be, and the crossing should be done on Archibald instead of Marion, somehow. Marion has several times the volume of traffic than Archibald does.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1286  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2015, 10:51 PM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 11,678
I just drove through that intersection on my way home. Northbound Archibald to westbound Marion. It was fine. Took 2 changes of the lights to make my left turn, but that's nothing to freak out about.

I'd also like to point out that "solving" this traffic problem is only going to make the problems on QEW with traffic moving between Stafford/River and Marion/Goulet worse. The turn lanes at Main and Stafford and St. Mary's and Marion are already over capacity and it can take several light cycles to get through. And that goes hand in hand with a point I hammer on here: induced demand. You just can't build your way out of traffic problems. However annoying Marion and Archibald is as a traffic bottle neck, it's way less annoying than a cash strapped city spending 200 million to throw away actual tax dollars so that people can live in further flung suburbs and cost the city even more when it has to build a new bridge over the Red.

I get it that bulldozing huge tracts of cities and displacing thousands of people is normal in China, so this is small beans for you, Spocket. But Winnipeg isn't a city of millions dealing with a rapidly urbanising peasant population. As a board veteran, I'm surprised you're so down with this plan.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1287  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2015, 1:39 AM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Back from the dead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,508
Okay, let's talk turkey :

I'm going to keep my tone as neutral as possible out of respect for you but I'll tell you about what living in China has taught me : Most of what people on this board talk about in terms of planning is utter shite. They say they want denser neighborhoods but aren't willing to give up even the slimiest, most decrepit, fire-hazard of a crackhouse to get it. Always on and on about how neighborhoods are damaged by any changes. They say "Yeah, let's build mid rises everywhere !" but what they mean is "Let's build mid-rises everywhere but nowhere near where I live, lived, or will ever want to live."

They talk about the character of a neighborhood as though it's immutable. As if St. Boniface is actually only populated by French-speaking people. As if the North End is somehow better off by looking like a slum in some parts because that's what gives it its character. As though Point Douglas was always some run-down district full of fire hazards where even the burned out husks of buildings deserve preservation.

Well, now I live in China and here are the basics of living in super-dense communities : Firstly, there's plenty of sunshine. They don't pack them all side by side. If somebody in Canada or China wants sunshine then they'll have to leave their home. That's the biggest impediment to getting your vitamin D right there. So walk outside for fifty feet and tan your brains out. Problem solved.

Traffic. Yup. I realized not too long ago that China is easily the most generous country in the world. Why do I say that ? Because they're SO generous that they gave away every single fuck they had when it came to driving and now they clearly have none left. Yes, it's a giant clusterfuck. However, here are the perks : Subways, elevated LRT, buses every 2 minutes, and taxis are both cheap and plentiful. How can they do that ? Density. There aren't any houses but that doesn't mean everybody lives in a 50 storey tower either. Most buildings are 6 floors which, if you actually notice, isn't as much higher than a two-storey home as a lot of people think.

Street life : It's not even a question of culture because you see the same thing in Manhattan. Either way, it's absolutely everywhere. That sense of community and vibrancy you get when you're on Corydon in the summer ? It permeates every street and back alley here. Yes, you have to deal with crowds in some places during peak hours. On the other hand, you don't need to hop in your car and drive for 30 minutes to get that same community energy. That high density makes every area a bustling hub.

Convenience : Nothing you need is ever more than a few hundred meters away. Most of the time it's literally an elevator ride away. I go downstairs and walk fifty feet and I can get a hair cut, medicine, fresh produce, snacks, do my banking, go to school (were I a student) get tech gadgetry, dine out (with plenty of options to choose from) buy a bike, go to the gym, sit in a park, etc. I'm not exaggerating. It really is that close.

So why do I mention any of this ? Because it wasn't always like this. I can also go to the fringes of the city that haven't been rebuilt and see what this place all looked like 30 years ago. It was an absolute cesspool. Open sewers, garbage everywhere, no room for transportation services even if there were any, and so on. So what happened ? China decided that it didn't like what it had and wanted something better. It razed all those old dumps and replaced them with modern construction that facilitated growth and prosperity. The key point is that it did what was necessary and I can assure you that people are definitely better off.

Well, Winnipeg suffers from this idea that if something is old it must be good. No P.O.S. shack can be torn down in Winnipeg without somebody having a problem with that plan of action. We can't change anything. Oh, sure we talk about how we all want change but that's all we do is talk. Nobody is prepared to sacrifice anything at all for the sake of something better. We're just fine with everything the way it is. We like never changing. Why, if we could, we'd rebuild the city exactly as it was 100 years ago. Because that would actually work /s.

We want rapid transit but won't accept that the only way to make it feasible is by tearing down low density housing and replacing it with high density. Damages the character of the neighborhood, you see. We want a new arena but we can only build it exactly where the old one is and god forbid we tear down an unusable eyesore and put it downtown where it's most conducive to facilitating street life. Can't have that because some other place tried it and they failed. We'll stick with the giant old empty block thank you very much. We want more people downtown. Rather than building places for them to live or doing anything to encourage developers to follow suit, we chastise developers who try, renege on deals we made with them, accuse the city of corruption when a developer actually does manage to do it, and complain that any proposal is junk and should never see the light of day anyway. Until it's built ; then it's a great addition.

And no progress can be made without making necessary changes. People who don't live in the neighborhood or have never lived in it are telling me what a loss it is to the community that we're losing a strip club that kept us all up at night for years with their "high end" Harley-riding clientele, a Chinese food delivery joint, Timmie's that didn't exist 15 years ago, and about a dozen half rental houses that are just this side of condemnation anyway. And we claim that this is going to damage the character of the neighborhood. No it won't. We won't have to wait an extra half hour for trains that keep us from getting to our neighborhood. On top of that there are people telling me that there are no traffic problems in the first place. Anybody who says that clearly doesn't live in the neighborhood or has never spent any appreciable amount of time in it. So you'll excuse me if I completely dismiss their opinion of traffic concerns at that corner.

If people want to put a complete moratorium on urban boundary growth in the city then fine. Go nuts. Won't stop people from moving in and one way or another there are going to be more people who are going to tie up traffic. If we all want to pretend that it can all be fixed with pixie dust and a charming ditty then fine, ask Santa for a new Red Rider BB gun while they're at it. People who actually want problems fixed understand that you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet and that's all there is to it. We can put lipstick on this pig all we want but the goal is damage mitigation rather than completely innocuous alteration of the city's infrastructure facilities. Seems to me that the city has done what it can do in that respect.

Of all the forums I go to on this board, nowhere is the absolute disgust with change as palpable as it is here. People here will opine on the merits of a fucking lean-to as opposed to a block of condominiums rather than accept that one is clearly better than the other for the vast majority of people. The cynicism, apathy, resistance to change, and downright negativity towards any development is always focused on what we're losing rather than what we're gaining. It's EXACTLY what keeps holding Winnipeg back.
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1288  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2015, 10:20 PM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 11,678
Great post. I really like your insights about China and I agree with you about the benefits of density and the detriments of Nimbyism. But my point was that improving this road will never lead to more density. Whereas in China, they'll destroy an older area with a piece of infrastructure because that infrastructure will serve a literal million people living in a dense area, here when we destroy this specific area, it's just going to be for a few thousand people who live further away. All we're accomplishing is losing density and all the benefits it accrues.

If the city upzoned the neighborhood and people started tearing it down to build midrises, that would be an entirely different story.

In this case, the city is tearing down a neighborhood and not only aren't they replacing it with nothing better, they're precluding the neighborhood ever densifying. And not to say this neighborhood is some jewel--it's clearly not--but this project will absolutely ruin it and turn it into a dump.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1289  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2015, 5:00 PM
Auror Auror is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
Great post. I really like your insights about China and I agree with you about the benefits of density and the detriments of Nimbyism. But my point was that improving this road will never lead to more density. Whereas in China, they'll destroy an older area with a piece of infrastructure because that infrastructure will serve a literal million people living in a dense area, here when we destroy this specific area, it's just going to be for a few thousand people who live further away. All we're accomplishing is losing density and all the benefits it accrues.

If the city upzoned the neighborhood and people started tearing it down to build midrises, that would be an entirely different story.

In this case, the city is tearing down a neighborhood and not only aren't they replacing it with nothing better, they're precluding the neighborhood ever densifying. And not to say this neighborhood is some jewel--it's clearly not--but this project will absolutely ruin it and turn it into a dump.
I am sorry but I am not sure how you think that it would turn that intersection into a dump? It already is one. An oil change building with a big ugly surface parking lot in one corner, an old shady strip club in another corner, among a number of other issues.

It's great that you got through it quickly in two light changes. That was a good day. I work at nights and sometimes morning but when I work a morning, it's usually at 7am so I get through that intersection before rush hour. But on days I start at 9am, I never am happy because of that intersection. I leave a lot earlier than I should because I never know what it's going to be like.

Winter? Forget it. I'll leave pretending I'm starting at 8:15am just so I can be there at 9am.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1290  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2015, 6:34 PM
rypinion's Avatar
rypinion rypinion is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East Exchange, Winnipeg
Posts: 1,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
And not to say this neighborhood is some jewel--it's clearly not--but this project will absolutely ruin it and turn it into a dump.
I'm worried that the neighbourhood-ruining will extend up and down Marion/Goulet, which is just densifying and getting really nice. Would be a shame for it to become a pseudo-expressway.

Last edited by rypinion; Apr 25, 2015 at 11:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1291  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2015, 10:54 PM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 11,678
Indeed, Rypinion. I'd love to live a few blocks west of this intersection, where Marion gets pretty interesting and boasts a full host of neighborhood amenities in easy walking distance: groceries, beer, restaurants, banks, a head shop, etc. It's probably second only to Osborne for walkable convenience. I don't see traffic pouring in off a pseudo-expressway being any kind of plus.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Auror View Post
I am sorry but I am not sure how you think that it would turn that intersection into a dump? It already is one. An oil change building with a big ugly surface parking lot in one corner, an old shady strip club in another corner, among a number of other issues.
I'm talking about the neighborhood, not the intersection. If you take the time to look at the plans, you'll see they include widening Marion between Archibald and Youville, levelling every business, church, apartment building, and house in the way. It also includes demolishing everything between the Seine and Youville up to Goulet to turn that block into a mini-viaduct. I shouldn't need to point out that making Marion into a pseudo-expressway will isolate what's left of the neighborhood to the north from Happyland park, with decidedly unhappy consequences.

I don't dispute that The Great Canadian Oil Change (ugh, that name) and the Chalet Hotel are dumps. But they're tax paying dumps. Interchanges pay no taxes. This project is a net-loss for the city's bottom line. You'll have to eat a tax increase, not only to pay for this exorbitantly expensive project, but to make up for the tax dollars it's throwing in the trash.


And the point of my traffic anecdote is that I don't care about anecdotes. You'll always find people who say contradictory things about their personal experiences. Trading anecdotes in a debate is the equivalent making claims about how tough our dads are. Moreover, that traffic at this intersection is bad isn't the point--there are far better, cheaper, and less destructive ways to improve traffic flow at this intersection than taking a fucking wrecking ball to everything in sight.

Look at it this way: you know what would improve your commute? If the city levelled Windsor Park. Now, does that sound fair?
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1292  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2015, 11:49 PM
rypinion's Avatar
rypinion rypinion is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East Exchange, Winnipeg
Posts: 1,396
The walk score of that area of St. B is among the highest in the city (zoom in on the map here): https://www.walkscore.com/CA-MB/Winnipeg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1293  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2015, 11:42 PM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Back from the dead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
Great post. I really like your insights about China and I agree with you about the benefits of density and the detriments of Nimbyism. But my point was that improving this road will never lead to more density.
Firstly, thank you. Secondly I respectfully disagree.

The city could rezone the entire city to high-density at any time if there were some critical need for it do so.
My point was that you can't just build any of that high density without providing the related infrastructure.
The unfortunate truth is that the city built those shitty suburbs and continues to do so but that's actually beside the point. It wouldn't really matter what was built further down the traffic line. What's important is that there's something there at all. That simply translates into increased traffic and whether that traffic comes from some neighbourhood that a planner took a butter knife to (to spread it out) or some mini-Dubai, it's still there. That issue has more to do with what the city does with greenfield sites than traffic infrastructure.

I honestly don't think that many people in the neighbourhood are going to miss any of those businesses (with the notable exception of Teasers. For that I'm sure there'd be a block party) I don't mean they're happier to have them gone or anything but these businesses aren't convenience stores or even gas stations. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever had reason to frequent any of those businesses. I don't mind watching peelers but I'd rather travel to do that than deal with idiots who've never heard of a muffler.

Anyway, I don't think we're going to reach terms here so I'll leave it at that.
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1294  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2015, 12:42 AM
Auror Auror is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 127
Biguc, of course I would completely understand your point. It sucks when buildings have to be taken down.

I wouldn't be too thrilled if I learned Windsor Park has to be levelled to improve something for the future. But I'll be okay soon enough once I settle somewhere else nearby. Since I know that sometimes hard decisions have to be made to improve the city. I'm not someone that screams at the city to go somewhere else. If I and everyone else does that, yes I get to keep my home, but who will pay for that decision? My daughters and all her friends would, dealing with a crippled city.

And BTW, the church isn't going anywhere according to that map.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1295  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2015, 2:20 AM
rypinion's Avatar
rypinion rypinion is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East Exchange, Winnipeg
Posts: 1,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auror View Post
Since I know that sometimes hard decisions have to be made to improve the city. I'm not someone that screams at the city to go somewhere else. If I and everyone else does that, yes I get to keep my home, but who will pay for that decision? My daughters and all her friends would, dealing with a crippled city.
So you feel the exact same as myself and biguc, it's just we think that building the interchange is what will cripple the city, where you think the opposite. We think the "hard decision that needs to be made to improve the city" is to actually buy into the idea of induced demand and realize that throwing millions of dollars into this is a giant waste of money that will make things worse by every metric.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1296  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2015, 4:11 AM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 11,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spocket View Post
Firstly, thank you. Secondly I respectfully disagree.

The city could rezone the entire city to high-density at any time if there were some critical need for it do so.
My point was that you can't just build any of that high density without providing the related infrastructure.
The unfortunate truth is that the city built those shitty suburbs and continues to do so but that's actually beside the point. It wouldn't really matter what was built further down the traffic line. What's important is that there's something there at all. That simply translates into increased traffic and whether that traffic comes from some neighbourhood that a planner took a butter knife to (to spread it out) or some mini-Dubai, it's still there. That issue has more to do with what the city does with greenfield sites than traffic infrastructure.

I honestly don't think that many people in the neighbourhood are going to miss any of those businesses (with the notable exception of Teasers. For that I'm sure there'd be a block party) I don't mean they're happier to have them gone or anything but these businesses aren't convenience stores or even gas stations. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever had reason to frequent any of those businesses. I don't mind watching peelers but I'd rather travel to do that than deal with idiots who've never heard of a muffler.

Anyway, I don't think we're going to reach terms here so I'll leave it at that.
But I don't want to agree to disagree!

Actually, I only have a couple points to make. First, this infrastructure could not support higher density. At least not in the area. It will take up space and make a local environment non-conducive to density, and a non-local environment conducive to sprawl. If they were widening Marion to run LRT down the middle with some kind of greasy Marquess/Shindico TOD in the stockyards, we'd have a different story.

Secondly, this is a question of fiscal responsibility. Whatever else we can say about the character of the neighborhood, or how beloved or reviled the businesses are, everything there pays taxes. I'm sure the trophy store can't be fucked to relocate. I don't think Teasers could find a place to relocate to. The Great Canadian Oil Change may find a new location, further down the road, where it's more expensive to service. Why throw away that money? On a larger scale, this is exactly what broke Detroit's back as a city even as its metro region has grown: literally driving residents and tax dollars out of town on the roads they built for them.

This much should be municipal policy 101: a bird in hand is better than 2 down the road.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1297  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2015, 4:50 AM
Auror Auror is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 127
You do have valid points and I don't want to argue that you're wrong.

But suppose you are right, improving the intersection is a waste and best to leave it.

Does that mean the multiple times that one drives up from Elizabeth or Fermor only to find that there are 120 cars in queue all the way right to Elizabeth and beyond, waiting to get on Marion.

Is it a meh, whatever. Their problems. Not ours, so leave that intersection alone?

Years later, Winnipeg has grown from 750k to 1.2M people. There's tens of thousands more people living where they need to commute through St Mary's, Marion, Archibald, and Provencher to get to downtown to work in one of the 10 or more new downtown skyscrapers? Traffic is backed on Archibald from Marion all the way to Fermor and beyond.

Now what? What suggestions should we give City Hall?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1298  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2015, 5:04 AM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
Secondly, this is a question of fiscal responsibility. Whatever else we can say about the character of the neighborhood, or how beloved or reviled the businesses are, everything there pays taxes. I'm sure the trophy store can't be fucked to relocate. I don't think Teasers could find a place to relocate to. The Great Canadian Oil Change may find a new location, further down the road, where it's more expensive to service. Why throw away that money? On a larger scale, this is exactly what broke Detroit's back as a city even as its metro region has grown: literally driving residents and tax dollars out of town on the roads they built for them.

This much should be municipal policy 101: a bird in hand is better than 2 down the road.
Didn't realize you were the fiscal responsibility type. Your post could be used as justification for why the new Earls on Main is better than the vacant lot that sits there now... You know, bird in the hand and all...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1299  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2015, 4:04 AM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 11,678
But of course. I've spent so much time on here advocating for market urbanist principles that I've nearly given up bringing them up. I never did go quite as far as to say an empty lot is better than the Earls, but I will say that the Earls is not quite in hand yet. Nor is True North Square, a convention centre hotel, Skycity Centre, a parcel 4 development, or any other pie floating around in our big prairie sky. Chasing those pie birds is exactly what got this city a downtown full of surface parking lots instead of modern towers and Portage and Main with pedestrian barricades and no gleaming twin towers on the south west corner.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Auror View Post
You do have valid points and I don't want to argue that you're wrong.

But suppose you are right, improving the intersection is a waste and best to leave it.

Does that mean the multiple times that one drives up from Elizabeth or Fermor only to find that there are 120 cars in queue all the way right to Elizabeth and beyond, waiting to get on Marion.

Is it a meh, whatever. Their problems. Not ours, so leave that intersection alone?

Years later, Winnipeg has grown from 750k to 1.2M people. There's tens of thousands more people living where they need to commute through St Mary's, Marion, Archibald, and Provencher to get to downtown to work in one of the 10 or more new downtown skyscrapers? Traffic is backed on Archibald from Marion all the way to Fermor and beyond.

Now what? What suggestions should we give City Hall?

I want to stress that I'm not saying improving the intersection is a waste, only that this planned improvement is extravagant to the point of being absurd. Archibald literally has dozens of intersections within a kilometer of Marion. Building a "free-flowing" interchange is silly. I use scare quotes because I'm not sure this overpass will even help drivers trying to travel west on Marion from Archibald. You'll take the off ramp and wait at a set of lights until you can make a turn, just like now. Traffic will still back up down Archibald.

A cheaper, less destructive option is to simply widen Archibald by one lane to make space for a double turn lane. I hate those things, but it would probably prove more functional than the overpass at getting traffic moving from Archibald onto Marion.

Beyond that intersection, I'd like to see underpasses and interchanges for high-speed roads used on actual high-speed roads. Traffic on Fermor eats shit every time a train crosses. Why not build an underpass there? And why not build a nice interchange on Fermor at St. Annes. I'm willing to bet that with those improvements, you'd be willing to skip taking Archibald and Marion in the first place.

By the time Winnipeg's population reaches 1.2 million, I'd hope we'd be able to enjoy a south-east rapid transit line. The entire problem of traffic rests on induced demand. If we improve Archibald and Marion, more traffic will be compelled to use it, negating the time savings the improvement wrought. This will be especially problematic as Winnipeg's population grows past one million. Mass transit also induces demand, but it does so with density and transit fares, both of which put money in the city's pockets that sprawl and free-to-use roads never will.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1300  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2015, 4:59 AM
Auror Auror is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
But of course. I've spent so much time on here advocating for market urbanist principles that I've nearly given up bringing them up. I never did go quite as far as to say an empty lot is better than the Earls, but I will say that the Earls is not quite in hand yet. Nor is True North Square, a convention centre hotel, Skycity Centre, a parcel 4 development, or any other pie floating around in our big prairie sky. Chasing those pie birds is exactly what got this city a downtown full of surface parking lots instead of modern towers and Portage and Main with pedestrian barricades and no gleaming twin towers on the south west corner.





I want to stress that I'm not saying improving the intersection is a waste, only that this planned improvement is extravagant to the point of being absurd. Archibald literally has dozens of intersections within a kilometer of Marion. Building a "free-flowing" interchange is silly. I use scare quotes because I'm not sure this overpass will even help drivers trying to travel west on Marion from Archibald. You'll take the off ramp and wait at a set of lights until you can make a turn, just like now. Traffic will still back up down Archibald.

A cheaper, less destructive option is to simply widen Archibald by one lane to make space for a double turn lane. I hate those things, but it would probably prove more functional than the overpass at getting traffic moving from Archibald onto Marion.

Beyond that intersection, I'd like to see underpasses and interchanges for high-speed roads used on actual high-speed roads. Traffic on Fermor eats shit every time a train crosses. Why not build an underpass there? And why not build a nice interchange on Fermor at St. Annes. I'm willing to bet that with those improvements, you'd be willing to skip taking Archibald and Marion in the first place.

By the time Winnipeg's population reaches 1.2 million, I'd hope we'd be able to enjoy a south-east rapid transit line. The entire problem of traffic rests on induced demand. If we improve Archibald and Marion, more traffic will be compelled to use it, negating the time savings the improvement wrought. This will be especially problematic as Winnipeg's population grows past one million. Mass transit also induces demand, but it does so with density and transit fares, both of which put money in the city's pockets that sprawl and free-to-use roads never will.
Point taken. Thank you
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:24 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.